Retic Postings and SPAM

From: Ledomwq (ledomwq_at_aol.com)
Date: 06/30/04 

Date: 30 Jun 2004 13:29:28 GMT

Retic Postings and SPAM
     
     There have been multiple accusations that the postings of H. E. Retic are
SPAM. The writer’s postings are carefully constructed so as remain within the
commonly accepted rules concerning SPAM, to wit:

     1. Postings of essentially identical material shall not be made to more
than eight Newsgroups. The writer has limited his postings to seven Newsgroups.

     2. Postings of essentially identical material shall not be made more
frequently than every 14 days. The writer's posting are separated by a longer
time span.

     3. Postings shall be reasonably close to the topic to which the Newsgroups
is dedicated. My postings are closer to being on topic for each Newsgroup than
are most of the postings within that group.

     4. The postings shall not be used for commercial purposes. They are not.

     5. There shall be no alteration of the header material of the postings.
While the postings are made under many different E-mail names, however AOL
provides for multiple user names and permits them to be altered at will.

     None of the writer's actions constitute SPAM as it is currently defined.
The accusations that the writer is a SPAMMER can reasonably considered to be
the slanderous behavior of sick minds. My postings are to de facto public
newsgroups which, as such, cannot limit their postings to material that agrees
with the majority viewpoint and still retain their legitimacy. That type of
censorship is legitimate only when done by moderated groups. To avoid this
censorship, the writer has made use of AOL's useful capability of allowing user
name changes. (It has been alleged that such changes are the characteristic of
a "crank". They are not, they are the response of any reasonable individual
whose ideas are being suppressed.)

     The writer concludes that the strident protest against the writer's
postings can only result from fear, otherwise they just be ignored if the
content were thought not to be valid. After all, there are many more foolish
postings than mine made to these Newsgroups without evoking complaint. The only
reason for the complaints would seem to be that the complainer is not upset by
the fact the posted material is "wrong", he is upset by the idea that they
challenge what he has been taught and he may be forced to "go back to the
drawing board" and relearn his physics.

     Even more sinister is the possibility that the complainers know that their
science is defective and wish to shield it from question by students of the
subject. Such questions make it much more difficult to indoctrinate students
with the "one true faith" which must not be questioned. It should be noted that
the complainers have not attempted to answer any of the basic questions which
have been raised, instead they have resorted to vilification.

     The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT.

     Please either respond via E-Mail or back any response to a Newsgroup with
E-mail, as Newsgroups are not monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses
will be treated with the same courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the
wastage of time on both of our parts, please do not raise objections that are
not related to material that you have read at the Website. This posting is
merely a summary.

     E-Mail einsteinhoax@aol.com

     The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. The failure of such rebuttal to
appear is deafening. Responses asking for a continuation of the postings after
a modem failure produced two days of down time has been most gratifying.