On 5 Jun, 11:29, Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:20:12 -0700, art wrote:
The question is not what he is striving for is a valid quest.
The question is should the press or media decide on it's validity
and possibly consider the censoring of the story. Some people
on this newsgroup are angry because the story has been given
publicity that they feel is undeserved and harmfull to the minds
of some readers. They want to squash the idea by ridicule or
censorship since in their judgement it propulgates falsities
about science. If the minority in science who wish to decide
what is and what is not harmfull or fruitfull to the community
then the study of science itself is not required and
neither is debate.
Art

I guess I'm one of the "angry" one... because this is yet another
case of bad science reported to a public that is incapable of telling
good science from bad science and which in this case wasn't even
offered the opportunity unless it was via knowledge gained from
elsewhere.
O.K. your complaint is noted.
Should the press add a disclaimer of the
veracity of the claims?
Should one have a trial with the assumption that
what is said is correct and not prematually presumed to be false?
At what degree level would one have to be a legitamate judge?
Should the Supreme Court be councilled before a statement is allowed
to be made?
Should the President council Congress before he faces the nation?
Should not YOU council others before you make a statement aboyut
others?
Lewellyn made an allegtation about the poor state of education of
other than himself
should he be stoned to death?
This a simple argument over something that was reported and YOU are
angry.
And you want your comments to be removed, but for why?
Do you consider that they may not be valid or stand the test of time?

This newsgroup allows you, an unknown to express his thinking
as a term of free speech while you on the other hand want to
stilt the free speech of others. Your highness, you are much to harsh
on those that you judge. Hopefully your house is not made of glass.
Art



Yes, I think that when the press reports on a perpetual motion machine
they're obligated (in a social contract sense vs a legal one) to point
out that such things are really impossible. And when they report on a
device claimed to burn water that represents a potential energy
solution... then I think the times (energy shortages, high gas
prices) demand more balance than was provided.

The real point being that there was no "debate" in the original story.
It was nothing more than a one sided "let's stir them up today" piece.