Re: KRS - Possible news to come

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 09/18/04 

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:11:59 +1200

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:03:41 GMT, "Martin Reboul"
<martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> wrote:

>
>"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in message
>news:10knit9rh96bk90@corp.supernews.com...
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Even if all of whichwas true, it has nothing to do with the accusation
>> > (which you snipped) implied in your final paragraph addressed to me:
>> >
>> > "As for 'a bunch of kooks slapping each other on the back
>> > and encouraging themselves to strengthen their faith', you
>> > might want to look outside the 'naysayers'. You may even
>> > want to look in a mirror".
>>
>> Eric,
>>
>> I stand behind the first sentence. It is manifestly true.
>>
>> I retract the last sentence. It is not manifestly true.
>>
>> >
>> > Your diatribe (above) about Inger, Michael Ruddy etc has nothing to do
>> > with the discussion of why some people are not invited into behind the
>> > scenes discussion of on going work associated with the KRS.
>>
>> It has quite a lot to do with it, actually. If, as was the
>> case with Ruddy, most participants on these email discussions
>> don't read newsgroups, and if they have developed trust with a
>> participant who has, then if the latter person relays
>> information and impressions of the ng to the email group that
>> are strongly biased against some ng participants, how likely
>> would it be that the email group would decide to invite
>> interested folks from the ng to participate?
>>
>> Inger's behavior could have functioned as a blackball. It's
>> related to the discussion of why some people are not invited to
>> behind the scenes discussion of on going work associated with
>> the KRS.
>
>Has anyone ever given a reason as to why such invitations are not extended?

It's not an invitation as such. People just start writing backwards
and forwards to each other.
>
>Surely this is a matter of scientific investigation, which only has any real
>point in matters such as the KRS if the results are made public? Any 'secrecy'
>or formation of an 'inner echelon' will only serve to arouse suspicion, and make
>any such results and conclusions drawn from them unlikely to be taken seriously.
>
>In other words, it looks like something has possibly turned up that does not
>match the hopes or aspirations of those who ordered (and paid for) that research
>to be done. What could they possibly have to fear I wonder?
>
>As if we don't already know!

Having prejudged the outcome and letting that influence all of one's
research and thinking is one reason why people might not be involved.
A helpful attitude of open-minded enquiry is the best entree.

Eric Stevens

Quantcast