Our forum ethics

[exnihiloest]

I wonder why this post is accepted:

Lawrence,  I was surfing around & found this quote from you.  It is soooo GOOD I thought I would post it here.
You are trying to help the world, but hardly anybody appreciates your work.

==================================================

Boss: "I paid you to discredit all overunity researchers. How come they are getting stronger?"

Debunker1: "It is difficult to debunk the simple tuning fork. The sound is louder and lasts longer."

Boss: "Who cares? Just tell them it is a measurement error. Sound Energy cannot be measured accurately. Tell them not to believe their ears."

Debunker2: "I tried but the sound did last much longer."

Boss: "Tell them it is nonsense to have energy coming into the system. Tseung is a mad man. Attack his credibility. Attack his FLEET prototypes. His handiwork is terrible. His prototypes all fell apart in shipping."

Debunker1: "We have Polynt99 and team proving his prototype had COP < 1. But there was a PhysicsProf showing slight changes could affect the result. Tseung attributed that to resonance. Resoldering a joint changed the resonance condition."

Debunker2: "There are other LCR circuits showing COP>1 effects. The Joule Ringer, the Kananadze and the Armagdn03 resonance circuits are examples. We cannot murder them like Stan Meyer."

Boss: "Try the super troll technique of pretending to help and then do character smearing. Tseung is an easy target as he quotes religion all the time."

Debunger1: "Can we feed him to the lions? His physics and mathematics are rock solid. We successfully destroyed his two threads at overunity.com. But he built up a large number of followers."

while this one is deleted:

...
Debunger1: "His physics and mathematics are rock solid."

Swindler: "Yes my math is rock solid: Input energy + abracadabra = $$$"

Simpleton: "It's very complicated, I don't understand. You are a very bright person. What does mean $$$?"

Swindler: "Don't care about this process. Only our team is concerned by $$$. It is our hard work. In layman terms, this means for you "free energy"."

Simpleton: "Do you mean: Input energy + abracadabra = output energy > input energy?"

Swindler: "Well done, Simpleton! You are much more intelligent than the academics and the skeptics who don't understand the real science."

Simpleton: "Thank you, Swindler. Now I understand. I will buy your abracadabra kit. And this will be also my fight against the conspiracy of the oil industry."

Swindler: "Nice to see that you support a bright future for the earth. Our children need it. Thanks for your great humanity, Simpleton!"

There is no reciprocity and no balance. There is obviously a deontology problem with this censorship (in addition to a lack of the sense of humour).
Can we say anything, as long as we claim that there is free energy?
Should we have always either to keep quiet or to extol the alleged free energy, even if it smells the scam or the pure stupidity?
The truth never comes from a single side story.

[poynt99]

It is clear that some OUR members are not following the guides for posting.

We are presently working on a solution to this issue.

Thanks for your concern.

[exnihiloest]

It is clear that some OUR members are not following the guides for posting.

We are presently working on a solution to this issue.
...

Thanks!

[Allcanadian]

@Exn

There is no reciprocity and no balance. There is obviously a deontology problem with this censorship (in addition to a lack of the sense of humour).

Personally I thought it was hilarious 
As well it would seem your idea of balance is censorship-- why am I not surprised Exn? You seem to exhibit a pattern in this respect which to be honest I find quite offensive.

Regards

[poynt99]

As well it would seem your idea of balance is censorship-- why am I not surprised Exn? You seem to exhibit a pattern in this respect which to be honest I find quite offensive.

Evidently AC, it's a matter of perspective.

Do you believe that many of your own posts aren't perceived as offensive?

Not to mention the unsubstantiated accusations you made in the Lewin thread that I am still waiting to see if you will ever grow enough balls to answer to.  

[Allcanadian]

@Poynt99

Evidently AC, it's a matter of perspective.

I would think everything is completely a matter of perspective, why would anyone think it isn't?.

Do you believe that many of your own posts aren't perceived as offensive?

I am 100% sure some people would find my posts offensive , I find some of my posts offensive lol. The difference here is that I understand this perfectly well and most of the time I am far more critical of myself and what I write than anyone here. I think self-reflection is an attribute which seems to be lacking in this modern age and many people think they can say or do anything which happens to fall in line with polular opinion.

Not to mention the unsubstantiated accusations you made in the Lewin thread that I am still waiting to see if you will ever grow enough balls to answer to.

If your implying I'm not perfect then I would agree 100%, I wouldn't even claim to be correct about one half of the things one half of the time. You see I hope I am wrong, I hope I am wrong about everything because if I am right then we cannot change anything and a lack of change will be our undoing.
In any case if you think my being right about the Lewin thread is important to me then you would be completely wrong because none of my posts were ever about right or wrong, they were about making people think.

Edit -- If this is important to you then let's discuss it in the Lewin thread, I have no problem with this but to be honest I have no idea what your referring to, we can figure that out there if you want.

Regards

[poynt99]

You are a strangely unique individual AC. 

OK, respond to these 3 posts:

1)

2)

3)

[GibbsHelmholtz]

I feel responsible for part of the influence...or all of it. lol  This lead me to a new concept of reality and a method to achieve it.

Since we're way pass the time of the Wright brothers, I could ask:  "What is the reality, can air planes fly or not?".  You still can't really answer that question.  If a person in the past said air planes can't fly based on buoyancy, he was right and always right.  So the reality is air planes cannot fly under buoyancy.   The minute that person see a flying plane, he changes his perspective.  I think an OU device neither exist or not exist, but rather do you have the right perspective.  The method is to always change and modify our perspective until it correctly describes a new reality.  I guess this is just a reminder rather than something new. 

[muDped]

Gibbs,  you have a gift for making the difficult to understand
understandable in a very practical way.  The nuances of
belief and why people see things the way they do.

[GibbsHelmholtz]

Thanks Dumped,

I do my best.