Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Discussion board help and admin topics => Help to access this discussion board => Topic started by: tak22 on September 20, 2008, 10:41:21 PM

Title: off OU topic distractions
Post by: tak22 on September 20, 2008, 10:41:21 PM
 :( I find the 911, aliens, and other not OU topics distracting, and they rapidly push
the OU topics off/down the front page and forum lists. While interesting and informative
at times, they really defeat the purpose of getting and keeping as many people as
possible engaged with working on OU solutions. We will lose good people.

The new section for "We can't live without the truth" is just encouraging more of the
same problem.

 ??? I have no solution, just recognizing an issue.

tak

 
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Yucca on September 20, 2008, 11:38:02 PM
Yes tak, I agree, OU related stuff should get higher priority.

There are a few solutions I have thought of, this is my favourite so far:

Have two recent posts lists on the homepage, the top list contains threads directly related to free energy research, the lower list contains all other threads.

This would probably require modification of the forum software, but that is doable because Stefan uses SMF forum software which is open source.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: tak22 on September 20, 2008, 11:57:01 PM
I like the two lists idea, or maybe in our PROFILE we could select forums to view, which might even
reduce bandwith as sometimes there would be less to display.

And the more we talk about this, the more it merges into the same problem ......  ;D

tak
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Yucca on September 21, 2008, 01:18:53 AM
I like the two lists idea, or maybe in our PROFILE we could select forums to view, which might even
reduce bandwith as sometimes there would be less to display.

And the more we talk about this, the more it merges into the same problem ......  ;D

tak

LOL, don't worry about this thread knocking free energy threads off the top spot, a lot of OU members would I'm sure be thankful if ideas like this get implemented.

Not that I've got anything against political views and discussions, I just think this forum should give priority to free energy related stuff.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: tak22 on September 22, 2008, 10:33:35 PM
It's a new MIB tactic. They don't have to know anything about science or OU, they just need to be
able to type and distract. The forum list of 500 posts right now is 35% off topic, and if you add in
all the other useless posts it's probably only 50% OU.  >:(

No wonder you don't see the 'regulars' around here much anymore. 

tak
Title: Amazing!!! WOW!!! Finally!!! see what i mean?
Post by: FreeEnergy on September 22, 2008, 11:05:27 PM
yes i agree with giving priority to free energy related stuff, it should be on top of things here.

also don't let people change the topic of threads because it can get annoying when viewing recent posts list, because it looks like a new started thread which in reality is not. some of those thread i have no interest to begin with and can be a waste of time.

Maybe we can cast a vote on these things using the forum voting system.




peace
Title: Re: Amazing!!! WOW!!! Finally!!! see what i mean?
Post by: professor on September 22, 2008, 11:40:41 PM
Not really If you logged in under "Off Topic distractions Directory" then it does not matter what it says in the Heading
as long as it relates to the Subject Matter. Its just another Subject Title. I see nothing wrong with that.
Look at the Energetic Forum it is up to you what you want to call your posting as long as it stays in that Directory.
If you were changing the Directory I would agree with you.
professor

yes i agree with giving priority to free energy related stuff, it should be on top of things here.

also don't let people change the topic of threads because it can get annoying when viewing recent posts list, because it looks like a new started thread which in reality is not. some of those thread i have no interest to begin with and can be a waste of time.

Maybe we can cast a vote on these things using the forum voting system.




peace
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Sprocket on September 23, 2008, 02:21:19 AM
Yep, gotta say I come here mainly to read what's up, OU-wise, and though the off-topic stuff is often a welcome distraction, imo, it shouldn't feature in the New Posts list at all - they are just too distracting!  Besides, there are other forums entirely devoted to this stuff.

btw, someone just mentioned some OU forum stats. - is it possible to monitor overall web-traffic here?  I'm specifically interested in knowing how much of a fall-off there has been since the "Roll on..." thread died when AQ left the building...
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: FreeEnergy on September 23, 2008, 08:14:54 AM
there are some topics inside directories that doesn't interest me and some do interest me. and when people change the tittle it looks like a new topic in the recent posts making me think its a new thread when its not, wasting my time. sure the directory's name don't change but there are many topics within the directory. does anyone else see what i am saying?
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Yucca on September 23, 2008, 05:09:19 PM
there are some topics inside directories that doesn't interest me and some do interest me. and when people change the tittle it looks like a new topic in the recent posts making me think its a new thread when its not, wasting my time. sure the directory's name don't change but there are many topics within the directory. does anyone else see what i am saying?

I see what you're saying. And I understand that you might temporarily lose track of a thread because of it being renamed.

Trouble is, if you prevent topic titles from being changed then that would be removing funtionality that is useful. I have often seen subject titles get changed because the first title was misleading, after being changed the title then made sense. For example the eminent Dr. Stiffler (great guy) has the phrase "self running" in his thread about the SEC exciter, however it has never been shown to self run, so IMHO it should really be changed.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: newbie123 on September 26, 2008, 11:14:00 PM
I believe it's about time for an Admin to start regulating these topics/discussions as well.    I'm not trying to disrespect the folks who want to discuss such topics, but I think it shouldn't be discussed on this site.   I also think these topics might even scare off some insightful people, and discredit (from a scientific standpoint) the great work done here already.  I'm not saying these guys are intentionally trying to do this.. But it is happening.



Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: poynt99 on November 11, 2010, 08:58:23 PM
Stefan,

I am a bit alarmed that you intend on deleting after one week the 3 or 4 threads dealing with Rosemary Ainslie's circuit.  :o

I agree that there are many posts that could/should be deleted, but the fact remains that the threads were virtually un-moderated, and for that they deteriorated to the level they are at today.

It would be a shame to lose all those posts that are genuine and on-topic. May I suggest that the worst that be done is to delete all non-pertinent, non-technical posts and leave the threads locked, or just leave them locked as they are.

I don't think it is right to delete them in their entirety, unless of course the thread has no technical merit whatsoever.

.99
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: powercat on November 11, 2010, 11:57:49 PM
Hi 99
I think the main problem is all the arguments and fighting,this is a problem that occurs on this forum on a regular basis,anyway at least once a month.
Maybe there should be a new rule that all arguments must be in PM's or they will be deleted,but then there is the problem of policing it  ::)
I am guilty of posting off topic, but I try my best to avoid an argument, I hope.

cat


Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: WilbyInebriated on November 12, 2010, 02:51:50 PM
I am a bit alarmed that you intend on deleting after one week the 3 or 4 threads dealing with Rosemary Ainslie's circuit.  :o
i have to say i am in complete agreement with you here poynt.

I agree that there are many posts that could/should be deleted, but the fact remains that the threads were virtually un-moderated, and for that they deteriorated to the level they are at today.
exactly. it went the way it went because stefan doesn't appear to have the time or desire to aquire decent, consistent moderation (with the exception of pirate) or do it himself, so sweeping it all under the rug with a delete is his "solution"... and that's lame.

It would be a shame to lose all those posts that are genuine and on-topic. May I suggest that the worst that be done is to delete all non-pertinent, non-technical posts and leave the threads locked, or just leave them locked as they are.
yeah the original ainslie thread has been locked for how long now? (since july 18, 2010) and he posted in that thread that it will be deleted as well... WTF?

I don't think it is right to delete them in their entirety, unless of course the thread has no technical merit whatsoever.

.99
if this were the case 99% of all threads on this forum should be deleted.

@stefan
what kind of confidence can you give to anyone who is about to post their hard work here that some group of malcontents won't troll and flame their thread all the while whinging to the administration until you just decide to delete their work in its entirety?
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: vonwolf on November 12, 2010, 06:18:08 PM
  @poynt99 & willby;

   Thank's for bringing this up. It's so disappointing that pepole from other forum's with clear agendas can successfully influence Stephan with ease and silence a discussion of a technology regardless of it's merits of a successful outcome. It my be winter and there is no heater that he knows of but is that what this forum is for? Is only proven technology allowed here? If that's the case some one has a lot of deleting to do.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Tenbatsu on November 12, 2010, 07:59:16 PM
Even if Rosemary Ainsile's circuit is not COP>17 or even COP>1 it deserves to be discussed here.

There are plenty of people here at overunity.com that go on and on about having a working overunity device - yet, with perhaps the exception of Omnibus, they get little flak and/or resistance.  Rosemary on the other hand had her thread flooded several times by the same people repeating the same arguments in an attempt to dissuade others from looking into the circuit.  I have to question their motives as most people who disagree with an inventor usually make their comments, defend them to a certain degree, then leave the thread quietly depending on the outcome.  This was definitely not the case in this instance as I believe their goal was to squelch Rosemary Ainslie's thread and halt further public exposure.

If hartiberlin wants this forum to remain successful he needs to implement and apply proper moderation.  It does not need to be heavy handed but even a little moderation would have salvaged that thread.  Squelching discussion is never the answer, maintaining civility should be apart of the forum rules and should be properly enforced by moderators here at all times.

Hopefully this action is not a look at things to come for I fear it will mean the end of this forum as many will find other places to freely interact with their peers without fear of having their work removed and deleted.  I hope you reconsider your actions, Stefan.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: truthbeknown on November 12, 2010, 08:24:45 PM
Rosemary could have had a fresh start here on her thread. In her very first post she stated what she intended on doing. Did she follow through? Then in reply #3 she started her bad mouthing again about the previous people who tried to help her. And her bad mouthing continued forward from that post. Go read for yourselves. And in the beginning page she had 2 people offer to start a build. What happened to them? Why didn't they do a build? They both still post in this forum. Go read who they are and ask them why they did not follow through. And its too bad that she didn't learn from her warnings from the Admin on EF.com because she was warned to not talk about or mention the names of certain people and to just go about her own business. Did she comply? She would not have been banned if she followed the advice.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 12, 2010, 08:39:05 PM
  @poynt99 & willby;

   Thank's for bringing this up. It's so disappointing that pepole from other forum's with clear agendas can successfully influence Stephan with ease and silence a discussion of a technology regardless of it's merits of a successful outcome. It my be winter and there is no heater that he knows of but is that what this forum is for? Is only proven technology allowed here? If that's the case some one has a lot of deleting to do.

Guys.  I need to advise you - in the hopes that Stefan won't delete this too.  I have some seminal public domain disclosures relating to our magnetic monopole - that needs to be salvaged as proof of having been made public.  I also suspect that the work related to the thesis is the issue as this is when the flaming was both initiated and allowed.  Poynty?  Someone?  Please help me out and allow those postings due record.  I assure you there's an agenda.  Why else delete?  Just lock - surely?  I've spent the last 12 hours downloading the info on just 1 thread.  But I need to keep it public while there's still some relevant memory related to this.  I'm not concerned about the switching circuit.  We already have a mountain of data.  I just absolutely cannot make it public while I KNOW that this work is being coveted with the intention of stealing it.  Unfortunately none of you actually realise this yet. 

PLEASE HELP ME OUT POYNTY.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

BTW - IF Energetic forum also remove and/or delete my work then that will put paid to this.  It will, I promise you, be resurrected as Harvey's or Glen's work. 
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: happyfunball on November 12, 2010, 08:41:40 PM
Rosemary could have had a fresh start here on her thread. In her very first post she stated what she intended on doing. Did she follow through? Then in reply #3 she started her bad mouthing again about the previous people who tried to help her. And her bad mouthing continued forward from that post. Go read for yourselves. And in the beginning page she had 2 people offer to start a build. What happened to them? Why didn't they do a build? They both still post in this forum. Go read who they are and ask them why they did not follow through. And its too bad that she didn't learn from her warnings from the Admin on EF.com because she was warned to not talk about or mention the names of certain people and to just go about her own business. Did she comply? She would not have been banned if she followed the advice.

It seems quite apparent that she needed to name names in order to sort out who is trying to take credit for her work. You should have all just left her alone and allow her to publish her results.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 12, 2010, 08:56:16 PM
Stefan,

I am a bit alarmed that you intend on deleting after one week the 3 or 4 threads dealing with Rosemary Ainslie's circuit.  :o

I agree that there are many posts that could/should be deleted, but the fact remains that the threads were virtually un-moderated, and for that they deteriorated to the level they are at today.

It would be a shame to lose all those posts that are genuine and on-topic. May I suggest that the worst that be done is to delete all non-pertinent, non-technical posts and leave the threads locked, or just leave them locked as they are.

I don't think it is right to delete them in their entirety, unless of course the thread has no technical merit whatsoever.

.99

Just seen this.  I'm so trying to reach either Poynty or Wilby.  I'm taking the trouble to repeat my post.  PLEASE GUYS.  HELP ME OUT.

Rosie

Guys.  I need to advise you - in the hopes that Stefan won't delete this too.  I have some seminal public domain disclosures relating to our magnetic monopole - that needs to be salvaged as proof of having been made public.  I also suspect that the work related to the thesis is the issue as this is when the flaming was both initiated and allowed.  Poynty?  Someone?  Please help me out and allow those postings due record.  I assure you there's an agenda.  Why else delete?  Just lock - surely?  I've spent the last 12 hours downloading the info on just 1 thread.  But I need to keep it public while there's still some relevant memory related to this.  I'm not concerned about the switching circuit.  We already have a mountain of data.  I just absolutely cannot make it public while I KNOW that this work is being coveted with the intention of stealing it.  Unfortunately none of you actually realise this yet.

PLEASE HELP ME OUT POYNTY.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

BTW - IF Energetic forum also remove and/or delete my work then that will put paid to this.  It will, I promise you, be resurrected as Harvey's or Glen's work.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: fuzzytomcat on November 12, 2010, 09:45:56 PM
Stefan,

I am a bit alarmed that you intend on deleting after one week the 3 or 4 threads dealing with Rosemary Ainslie's circuit.  :o

I agree that there are many posts that could/should be deleted, but the fact remains that the threads were virtually un-moderated, and for that they deteriorated to the level they are at today.

It would be a shame to lose all those posts that are genuine and on-topic. May I suggest that the worst that be done is to delete all non-pertinent, non-technical posts and leave the threads locked, or just leave them locked as they are.

I don't think it is right to delete them in their entirety, unless of course the thread has no technical merit whatsoever.

.99

Hi poynt99,

I e-mailed my concerns also to Stefan about this matter ....

###############################################################################################

Hi Stefan,
 
I saw poynt99 posting in http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5605.msg263751#msg263751  and I tend to now agree with him on the original thread " Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie" started by TK, is mostly technical in nature and was locked by me before any flaming could start in it like what happened at Energetic forum. They ended up going through and deleting about 200 postings prior to the letter sent out I posted http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg263187#msg263187 with there decision, for some reason the links don't work now but the e-mail is there.
 
 
DON'T FORGET  ..... the .... "Bash Rosemary Ainslie" self moderated locked thread http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.0 if you did deleted the three threads only and not this one ..... who knows what Rosemary would do or say.
 
 
The only two postings in the "**UN CENSORED** Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit" and the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder" are these .....
 
EXPERIMENTAL DEVICE TESTING AND EVALUATION "TIME LINE" -
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262932#msg262932
 
"FORUM" Access Problems / File Locations -
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262994#msg262994
 
 
I did hear from Tektronix and I don't know where Rosemary's "SWORN" affidavit is going but it appears there not happy at all, so no telling what Tektronix and Scribd may do concerning this matter.
 
 
Best Regards,
Glen
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 12, 2010, 09:58:10 PM
Even if Rosemary Ainsile's circuit is not COP>17 or even COP>1 it deserves to be discussed here.

There are plenty of people here at overunity.com that go on and on about having a working overunity device - yet, with perhaps the exception of Omnibus, they get little flak and/or resistance.  Rosemary on the other hand had her thread flooded several times by the same people repeating the same arguments in an attempt to dissuade others from looking into the circuit.  I have to question their motives as most people who disagree with an inventor usually make their comments, defend them to a certain degree, then leave the thread quietly depending on the outcome.  This was definitely not the case in this instance as I believe their goal was to squelch Rosemary Ainslie's thread and halt further public exposure.

If hartiberlin wants this forum to remain successful he needs to implement and apply proper moderation.  It does not need to be heavy handed but even a little moderation would have salvaged that thread.  Squelching discussion is never the answer, maintaining civility should be apart of the forum rules and should be properly enforced by moderators here at all times.

Hopefully this action is not a look at things to come for I fear it will mean the end of this forum as many will find other places to freely interact with their peers without fear of having their work removed and deleted.  I hope you reconsider your actions, Stefan.

Hi Tenbatsu - I assure you that the work is definitely COP>even that 17.  This is precisely why it is being buried.  Please don't allow it to happen.  I need everyone to rally - even if it's simply to download copies of that thread.  Otherwise the work will be resurrected as belonging to you know who.

This is just the start.  They're knocking my work off Scribd and I just PRAY that they don't delete the work at EF.COM. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 12, 2010, 10:08:52 PM
Rosemary could have had a fresh start here on her thread. In her very first post she stated what she intended on doing. Did she follow through? Then in reply #3 she started her bad mouthing again about the previous people who tried to help her. And her bad mouthing continued forward from that post. Go read for yourselves. And in the beginning page she had 2 people offer to start a build. What happened to them? Why didn't they do a build? They both still post in this forum. Go read who they are and ask them why they did not follow through. And its too bad that she didn't learn from her warnings from the Admin on EF.com because she was warned to not talk about or mention the names of certain people and to just go about her own business. Did she comply? She would not have been banned if she followed the advice.

When it comes to bad mouthing Truthbeknown - I don't believe that anyone on any forum anywhere on the internet has been bad mouthed to the extent that I have been.  Curiously it is always and only those members who actively research ou tecnologies and never themselves initiate new ideas - unlike the most of the members here.  There are precisely 6 of them.  And they have followed me EVERYWHERE - either in full on replications or in denying those replications when completed.  What's lacking is their acknowledgement of their own publicly stated results.  And it's that acknowledgement that is scarey.

@Glen.  Your desire to resurrect 'claimed overunity' is another political ploy.  It is the only thread that actively bad mouthed me - at a time when I could not even access this forum - or even that thread.  Your objects are transparent.  Always.

Rosemary
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: DeepCut on November 13, 2010, 01:47:34 AM
I vote for the two lists suggestion.

On the other hand, without having to re-write some PHP, maybe we shouldn't be so click-lazy, it's not hard to find new posts that are only OU-related, it's just not 'at a glance' easy ...
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Mk1 on November 13, 2010, 02:01:43 AM
@all

I have a question about Rosemary heater , first its a heater . How efficient is it compared to other heaters device generally used , regardless of OU claims , that might be the issue ...


Mark

Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: poynt99 on November 13, 2010, 03:03:10 AM
I vote for the two lists suggestion.

On the other hand, without having to re-write some PHP, maybe we shouldn't be so click-lazy, it's not hard to find new posts that are only OU-related, it's just not 'at a glance' easy ...

A bandaid solution isn't the answer imho.

An occasional dose of admin moderation could go a long way. There is quite a bit of slander that goes unchecked in some threads.

.99
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: WilbyInebriated on November 13, 2010, 03:15:08 AM
A bandaid solution isn't the answer imho.

An occasional dose of admin moderation could go a long way. There is quite a bit of slander that goes unchecked in some threads.

.99
indeed.

there is also quite a bit of logical fallacy going unchecked throughout the whole of the forum. funny though that stefan is so up in arms with the ainslie threads and yet the stiffler thread still stands... after all the deleting of off topic and abusive posts that stiffler did as moderator, why did that thread not receive the same treatment as the ainslie thread? why was it not locked and deleted after a week? is it because glen, harvey, ashtweth, et al cried and whinged to stefan? perhaps stefan can clear up the reasons behind these inconsistencies.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 13, 2010, 05:19:24 AM
It's like I'm not here - that I'm banned or put into coventry like a naughty school girl.  What is wrong with you all?  Wilby I need help - and you are entirely ignoring me.  My intention - if it's half way legal - is to transpose the whole of that thread onto a public forum.  I have already copied the thread and posted it to you.  Why are you not replying?  And Poynty?  It would be SO EASY for you to do just this.  Just salvagage that thread from extinction.  There are points made in it that are pertinent to both the thesis and to intellectual property that REALLY needs to remain OPEN SOURCE.  if you care at all about Open Source then PLEASE ASSIST by COPYING AT LEAST MY THREAD.  It is absolutely NOT ENOUGH that I have the only extant copy.

Meanwhile - would someone please advise me where I'm meant to put the link to my blog?  Are my posts even being read?  Or are these posts of mine somehow not public.  I HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG OTHER THAN DEFEND MY CORNER.  Where is there ANY residual loyalty amongs you?

ROSEMARY
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 13, 2010, 05:38:56 AM
@all

I have a question about Rosemary heater , first its a heater . How efficient is it compared to other heaters device generally used , regardless of OU claims , that might be the issue ...


Mark


And the only reason I'm taking the trouble to answer you MARK - is because you will NEVER get the TRUTH OF THIS FROM ANY OF THOSE PLAYERS.  And they are the only ones apart from me who can tell it like it REALLY IS.  Just copy this post if nothing else.  And then take a long hard look at it when we finally manage to go public on a forum that is NOT ON THE INTERNET

MARK.  The heater - compared to other heaters is is PRECISELY TWICE AS EFFICIENT.  And in full on resonance mode it delivers GREATER THAN UNITY.  In this mode it is capable to returning so much energy to the supply that IF you had the right watt meter you could bill your utility supplier.  There are three reasons this information is NOT MADE PUBLIC.  They are Harvey, Glen and Ashtweth.  These same reasons are Truthbeknown Tinsel Koala and Truthbeknown.  Sorry.  I left of two more.  TRUTHBEKNOWN AND HARVEY.  With the entire exception of Tinselkoala - they are - inter alia - the same people - if they can be classed at human - at all.

AND IF ANYONE EVER AGAIN DOUBTS THAT THERE IS A CONSPIRACY IN THE OFFING RELATED TO THE SUPPRESSION OF FREE ENERGY DEVICES - LET THE DELETION OF MY THREADS STAND AS PROOF.  There is self-evidently - an endless supply of funds that is invested into those more capable players - that they SUPPRESS technologies for the purposes of THEFT.  It's happening UNDER YOUR NOSES for God Sake.  And no-one is doing anything at all. 

Just ask yourselves.  WHY THE NEED TO DELETE THOSE THREADS?  There is proof of slander on this forum and other threads that makes our own seem like amateurs.  YET THE THREADS ARE NOT DELETED.  WHY?  Guys.  These OPEN FORUMS are the seeding ground for things that are going on the background which neither YOU NOR I will EVER BE FULLY CONVERSANT WITH.  Glen pretends to ANGER - HARVEY PRETENDS THE CIRCUIT IS INEFFICIENT - ASHTWETH PRETENDS HE KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON.  They post - this tirelessly - because this is all  REALLY DESIRABLE TECHNOLOGY - based on a thesis - THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN EVERY PARTICULAR.  And this extended and super efficient BURIAL OF THE THREADS - because there is that that has now been put public domain - even NEW technolgy - that points to ABSOLUTELY FREE ENERGY and ANTI GRAVITY - and NO FURTHER REQUIREMENT FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.  IT'S ALL ON THAT THREAD THAT THEY NOW NEED TO DELETE.


Rosemary
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: WilbyInebriated on November 13, 2010, 06:01:35 AM
sorry rosemary, i was not intentionally ignoring you. i replied to some posts and then had to leave. i'm not quite sure where this posted copy of the thread is that you want my assistance with. i checked my pm's and my email and did not find any correspondence from you.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 13, 2010, 06:05:14 AM
sorry rosemary, i was not intentionally ignoring you. i replied to some posts and then had to leave. i'm not quite sure where this posted copy of the thread is that you want my assistance with. i checked my pm's and my email and did not find any correspondence from you.

Thank God.  And THANK YOU WILBY.

I'll PM YOU. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: DeepCut on November 13, 2010, 01:16:10 PM
Rosemary i'll keep a copy for you. I'm not sure what the history is here but if all you want to do is make sure that there are multiple copies of your thread in existence then count me in. I've seen a lot of praise for your work so it must be worth keeping.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 13, 2010, 02:10:01 PM
Rosemary i'll keep a copy for you. I'm not sure what the history is here but if all you want to do is make sure that there are multiple copies of your thread in existence then count me in. I've seen a lot of praise for your work so it must be worth keeping.

Hi DeepCut.  I'm not sure how long this window of opportunity is going to be available to me.  I'm reasonably certain that I'll get banned here - within the foreseeable furture.  Certainly it's going to be near impossible to refer to those results that have been obtained - first to prove the thesis - which experiments were validated by many reputable labs - and then the replication - that Glen and Harvey et al are all trying to hide.  Apparently also with the active co-operation and assistance of Stefan.  Surprising when you think that this is probably the ONLY time that those energy barriers have been breached with absolute due and proper record and measurement.

What I'm hoping to get done is the duplication of the thread onto whatever forum - frankly in whatever way possible - and then LOCK that thread - or that forum.  If that can be done?  The more that are posted the better.  If you have friends who could do the same - then please get them to do it.  If we get a mushrooming evidence of that thread that Harti's going to delete - then we've got a chance of keeping that information alive and in the public eye.  And then, too I think that the public will begin to realise how URGENTLY do these horrors - these SUPPRESSORS OF THE TRUTH try to HIDE this good news.   

We've got results due from campus that will absolutely drown out opposition - but I very much doubt that we can risk putting it on the INTERNET first off.  I've learned a very hard lesson.  I think the best way to go is straight to the press.

So.  In whatever way you can help - it'll be a good thing.  I've started a blog.  Here's the link. 

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/

Not much on it yet.  But maybe you could try and alert people to its existence.  It'll hopefully be an overview of the thesis and I intend posting our own Quantum paper and the Open source collaboration that turned into the farce that Glen and Harvey orchestrated.  Anyway.  Try and spread the word - wherever you can manage - and obviously only if you have the time.  The work is definitely NOT my work.  It absolutely belongs to us all.  NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.  And it needs to stay that way.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: happyfunball on November 14, 2010, 12:31:10 AM
If you're gonna accuse the owner of the forum of collusion, I agree you're going to get banned Rosemary. He's deleting all of their stuff too, you know.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: fuzzytomcat on November 14, 2010, 12:45:45 AM
Howdy reading Members and Guests,

Does anyone know the meaning of the word "perjury" ??   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
Quote

Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.[1] That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case.

The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official.



What we have here is a "SWORN" legal affidavit to Scribd from "Rosemary Ainslie" on a Copyright dispute of a document ( Scribd )  doc/26240411

http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Legal%20-%20Notes/Scribd/Ainslie^_Affidavit^_Scribd.pdf   (verifiable)


We have a Tektronix e-mail about the equipment used in the "Open Source" testing and evaluation events -

http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Legal%20-%20Notes/Tektronix/Request^_for^_return^_due^_to^_misleading^_intent.pdf   (verifiable)


We have documents (doc/26240411) taken down by IEEE on Scribd with the note displayed "This content was removed at the request of IEEE" up loaded by aetherevarising  ( aka Rosemary Ainslie )

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/100130-071433-GLEN-01-Final-Draft

***************************************************************************************************
 


What IEEE does with the "SWORN" legal affidavit of Rosemary Ainslie is their business with Scribd.

What Tektronix does with the "SWORN" legal affidavit of Rosemary Ainslie is their business with Scribd.

What Scribd does with the "SWORN" legal affidavit of Rosemary Ainslie is their business.

But being my name is on the  "SWORN" legal affidavit of Rosemary Ainslie it's my business also with the unfounded unproven allegations and possible slander ....... and I do know what the meaning of "perjury" is .....
 


Regards,
Glen




Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: DeepCut on November 14, 2010, 01:44:28 AM
It's only perjury if presented in a court of law.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 01:45:45 AM
If you're gonna accuse the owner of the forum of collusion, I agree you're going to get banned Rosemary. He's deleting all of their stuff too, you know.

Happy you're right and I suspect that I'm out of line.  For that I apologise.  But I CANNOT understand why that thread needs DELETING.

I just cannot get there.  LOCK it.  Don't DELETE it.  Do you realise that I made public domain disclosures on our magnets that will now be lost?  Quite apart from the work itself?  And the thesis?  And my readership was NOT small.  On the contrary.

Anyway.
Rosemary

added BTW  -  What work of their's is he deleting?  By their work I presume you mean Glen's work and Glen has NEVER posted his work here.  He's posted links that - on the old thread related to deleted files - and on my thread work that relates to denial of the technology.  Nothing suits them better than to remove all reference.  Golly.  I thought you at least understood that much.

Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 02:03:39 AM
Howdy reading Members and Guests,

Does anyone know the meaning of the word "perjury" ??   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

What we have here is a "SWORN" legal affidavit to Scribd from "Rosemary Ainslie" on a Copyright dispute of a document ( Scribd )  doc/26240411

http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Legal%20-%20Notes/Scribd/Ainslie^_Affidavit^_Scribd.pdf   (verifiable)


We have a Tektronix e-mail about the equipment used in the "Open Source" testing and evaluation events -

http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Legal%20-%20Notes/Tektronix/Request^_for^_return^_due^_to^_misleading^_intent.pdf   (verifiable)


We have documents (doc/26240411) taken down by IEEE on Scribd with the note displayed "This content was removed at the request of IEEE" up loaded by aetherevarising  ( aka Rosemary Ainslie )

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/100130-071433-GLEN-01-Final-Draft

***************************************************************************************************
 


What IEEE does with the "SWORN" legal affidavit of Rosemary Ainslie is their business with Scribd.

What Tektronix does with the "SWORN" legal affidavit of Rosemary Ainslie is their business with Scribd.

What Scribd does with the "SWORN" legal affidavit of Rosemary Ainslie is their business.

But being my name is on the  "SWORN" legal affidavit of Rosemary Ainslie it's my business also with the unfounded unproven allegations and possible slander ....... and I do know what the meaning of "perjury" is .....
 


Regards,
Glen


More to the point - do you understand the meaning of the word DEFAMATION?  I am absolutely NOT GUILTY OF PERJURY.  To be guilty you will need to prove that I am precluded from publishing the submitted paper to the TIE - IEEE.   Perjury would require that I CLAIMED THAT IT WAS PUBLISHED.  I go to some considerable efforts both publicly here and in an explanation of the publication on SCRIBD to assure EVERYONE THAT THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED.  I rely on this.  It gives the cause enormous POLITICAL CAPITAL.  HOWEVER.  Now that Scribd have removed the paper PENDING AN INVESTIGATION - and as HARTI is about to remove my thread - there will be ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THIS.  Again.  To those of you who care enough.  Please make copies of that thread that is about to be deleted.

@Glen.  You need to remind us all how you stated on my thread - that thread that is about to be deleted - that 'everyone knows that you have sole copyright'.  There are seven authors.  ANY ONE OF THOSE SEVEN AUTHORS ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO PUBLISH THAT PAPER ANYWHERE THEY DEEM FIT. IN THE EVEN THAT THEY RECEIVE ROYALTIES FOR THIS THEN THAT MUST BE SHARED BETWEEN ALL THE COLLABORATORS.  You do NOT have sole copyright.  And if you try and register sole copyright then you will have PERJURED YOURSELF.  That is the meaning of perjury GLEN and I strongly propose you get familiar with the term.

Also.  You PERJURED YOURSELF previously when you wrote to Scribd to advise them that you REPRESENTED THE SOLE COPYRIGHT OWNER.  Then too they withdrew the paper - PENDING AND INVESTIGATION.  And may I remind both you and all the readers here that the result of that investigation was the RE-INSTATEMENT OF THAT PAPER.  I am ENTIRELY SATISFIED that this will be done again.  I have NOT INFRINGED ANYONE'S COPYRIGHT NOR WRONGFULLY MISREPRESENTED THE STATUS OF THE PAPER.  ON THE CONTRARY.

And I believe I either have you or Harvey or both of you to thank for this latest intervention - ALL DONE in a desperate attempt to lose me any voice at all.

Rosemary



Edited spelling
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: happyfunball on November 14, 2010, 02:07:33 AM
Happy you're right and I suspect that I'm out of line.  For that I apologise.  But I CANNOT understand why that thread needs DELETING.

I just cannot get there.  LOCK it.  Don't DELETE it.  Do you realise that I made public domain disclosures on our magnets that will now be lost?  Quite apart from the work itself?  And the thesis?  And my readership was NOT small.  On the contrary.

Anyway.
Rosemary

added BTW  -  What work of their's is he deleting?  By their work I presume you mean Glen's work and Glen has NEVER posted his work here.  He's posted links that - on the old thread related to deleted files - and on my thread work that relates to denial of the technology.  Nothing suits them better than to remove all reference.  Golly.  I thought you at least understood that much.

He's deleting their endless flaming. My personal advice is, ignore them, no one cares what they post except themselves. They've convinced no one of anything and you've defended yourself enough. 
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 02:13:54 AM
He's deleting their endless flaming. My personal advice is, ignore them, no one cares what they post except themselves. They've convinced no one of anything and you've defended yourself enough.

I wish that this was true.  He's actually deleting something in the order of 3 if not 4 entire threads.  And the one of them has work that was intended for public domain disclosure - as is all my work.  And if you look at the word count involved - it's the size of one or two good sized tomes.  Now to be relegated to a tomb stone.  More's the pity.

Rosemary
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 02:27:53 AM
ANOTHER OPEN LETTER TO HARTIBERLIN

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE MY OWN THREAD.  JUST LOCK IT.  ELSE WE WILL ALL LOSE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON THAT THREAD THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE PUT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN - IN GOOD FAITH - AND FOR PERMANENT RECORD.  THIS RELATES NOT ONLY TO THE WORK ON THE THESIS - BUT TO THE APPLICATION OF THAT WORK ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A MAGNETIC MONOPOLE.  ELSE THERE WILL BE NO DUE AND PROPER RECORD.  AND THAT WORK WILL BE LOST WHICH WILL ENABLE THE OUTRIGHT THEFT OF THAT TECHNOLOGY AND THAT THESIS.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Mk1 on November 14, 2010, 02:38:11 AM
@rosemary

Hi , good luck ...

I would like to say that your tread if deleted will be because of the behavior of the people in it more then the content , this is you invention , the responsible thing is to save all your info your self .

You are not banned , and could re post your info .

Some times we are responsible for our success , i have seen tread titles of your that were invitation for overflow of criticism , think 20 time before editing any comment , it always cast doubt about real intent because something is missing , and because someone got cut off , it is a NO NO.

You want people to work with you , you need to disclose everything down to wire gauge , part number , trade secret ,everything , otherwise you are not at the right place , plus it only leads to more problems people can't replicate doubt sets in not good , plus its a question of respect , i see that you spend time arguing , that time should be spent on explaining and showing .

Frankly , i never even bothered looking into your tread because there too much thing surrounding it .

It you really do this for the benefit of everyone then you don't need your name associated with it , knowing you made a difference is enough , Using your full name for user id , show some search of recognition that smells like a Ego , people do like that...

Those are my suggestion , good luck ...

Mark     

Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 03:06:56 AM
@rosemary

Hi , good luck ...

I would like to say that your tread if deleted will be because of the behavior of the people in it more then the content , this is you invention , the responsible thing is to save all your info your self .

You are not banned , and could re post your info .

Some times we are responsible for our success , i have seen tread titles of your that were invitation for overflow of criticism , think 20 time before editing any comment , it always cast doubt about real intent because something is missing , and because someone got cut off , it is a NO NO.

You want people to work with you , you need to disclose everything down to wire gauge , part number , trade secret ,everything , otherwise you are not at the right place , plus it only leads to more problems people can't replicate doubt sets in not good , plus its a question of respect , i see that you spend time arguing , that time should be spent on explaining and showing .

Frankly , i never even bothered looking into your tread because there too much thing surrounding it .

It you really do this for the benefit of everyone then you don't need your name associated with it , knowing you made a difference is enough , Using your full name for user id , show some search of recognition that smells like a Ego , people do like that...

Those are my suggestion , good luck ...

Mark     

Mark, Thank you for your honesty.  I realise you share this opinion with many others.  I have a very strong readership here - but it is certainly NOT amongst its members or, in any event, its more active members. 

Regarding the naming of the threads.  I have absolutely NEVER started a thread here at OU.com.  I would not know how to.  I do not have the internet skills.  You will notice that the first thread was started by TK - the second thread was put up by Harti.  I assumed that to counter the first - need my name in the second.  I recommended that it include my name.  It was not intended to promote myself.  THEN.  The third thread 'Bash Rosemary Ainslie here' - was intended as somewhere for Glen et al to post their crap - because my own thread was being systematically wrecked.  And I did not want to lose its readership - which was happening fast.  Then the fourth thread was started by Glen et al.  That thread had a burgeoning readership for precisely one day and all interest then died.  Since they couldn't manage to whip up the required interest on their own thread they then flamed mine precisely when I could do nothing about it as I was ill in hospital.  My son, B4free and Wilby tried to 'stop the rot' during my absense.  But it didn't work.  They're objects were managed.  Very capabably.

So.  I have never technically started any threads here at all.  And I do not know where I got the authority to monitor 2 of them.  In fact I never realised that I had this authority.  My own was required to stop the flaming - which I should have done.  As it was I allowed way too much freedom of expression.  The irony is that their complaint to Harti is that I deleted their posts.  LOL

Regarding the 'editing of comments' - I have deleted less than 0.2% of all that has been lodged against me.  Let me recap.  I deleted a post that had an x rated link.  I deleted a post from Shruggedatlas by accident.  I deleted 2 - I think it was - of Truthbeknowns' posts as they were faithfully being copied on another thread by herself.  Glen wrote to Harti to advise him that I had deleted 8 of his posts.  SIMPLY NOT TRUE.  It's in the same vein as saying - I 'slander' him or that I've perjured myself.  All allegations.  Not  shred of truth.  And those tedious links that he supplies as some kind of endorsement of his allegations?  They very seldom have any relevance at all.

And regarding the FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY.  I cannot do more than my best.  I have FULLY DISCLOSED ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THAT I CAN TO THE VERY BEST OF MY ABILITY.  It is the effeciency of this anti Anslie campaign that leaves you with the impression that anything is being held back.  My God.  They're good at what they do.

What I freely admit is that I have had second thoughts about SHARING the work that the students are doing.  This because it is their own work and I am truly afraid that Glen or Harvey will copy this work and claim it as their own.  I have that on record where this seems to be their intention.The students themselves will require that recognition.  It's now their project.  But while I may not disclose the test parameters I have EVERY INTENTION of showing those COP results.  And photographing or filming it as required.  And I assure you that NONE OF THAT WORK IS PATENTABLE.  It is just seminal research.

And had I been allowed to simply buckle down and share - as is my wont - then trust me, you'd be struggling for air.  They have, indeed, managed to prevent me sharing both by forcing me to fight my corner and by taking up huge chapters of my time.

Rosemary
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Mk1 on November 14, 2010, 03:26:48 AM
@rosemary

Ok to save text , you high light the text with the mouse holding the left click , once it is highlighted , right click and select the copy option .

You will need to save info some where , you can use notepad or word , just go to edit in the software and click paste .

To save picture , right click select save picture , you may want to create a folder for it .


Starting a tread is as easy as making a post , you got to be in power but never delete or get in extensive argument , it just drains energy for no good reason .
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: wattsup on November 14, 2010, 03:28:31 AM
I put all the pages of the closed thread are now here;
http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Overunity.com%20-%20Forum%20members/rosemarie-ainslie/

Someone can always rework the pages into a pdf file.

@stefan

As for deleting @RA's thread, @stefan please reconsider because the impact will be great. If you do that, then I and many others will never post a discovery on this forum because we could not trust you anymore. I could be Rosemary, like any other member here could be, and, none of us would want that kind of treatment. Any Joe Blow can come here and start massacring a thread then it results in the thread being deleted. Members will always have to be on guard, never knowing if the thread will be there from one week to the next. That's not a good way to run a forum. Besides, the thread will fall into its archival purpose like all other threads eventually do. So what's the big deal to delete it?. Just leave it closed but leave it there.

Then I suggest you ban @fuzzytomcat for having caused so much hassle. The guy has some lose parts in his brains and he has dishonored the OU community with his lower then low tactics. I am just totally insulted by his actions against Rosemary. Just get rid of him fast.

Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 03:32:21 AM
Thanks Mark.  But I'm not about to start another thread here.  Interesting point though. Does one automatically have the right to monitor one's thread?  I never knew that.

I need a forum where there's little or no interst so that I can make due record.  That's all that's required.  But I believe there are those members who have already attended to this.  So it's happening. 

My intention from here on is to simply develop my own blog.  That way no-one gets to interrupt the theme. 

You went to a lot of trouble there.  Thanks for that.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 03:38:19 AM
I put all the pages of the closed thread are now here;
http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Overunity.com%20-%20Forum%20members/rosemarie-ainslie/

Someone can always rework the pages into a pdf file.

@stefan

As for deleting @RA's thread, @stefan please reconsider because the impact will be great. If you do that, then I and many others will never post a discovery on this forum because we could not trust you anymore. I could be Rosemary, like any other member here could be, and, none of us would want that kind of treatment. Any Joe Blow can come here and start massacring a thread then it results in the thread being deleted. Members will always have to be on guard, never knowing if the thread will be there from one week to the next. That's not a good way to run a forum. Besides, the thread will fall into its archival purpose like all other threads eventually do. So what's the big deal to delete it?. Just leave it closed but leave it there.

Then I suggest you ban @fuzzytomcat for having caused so much hassle. The guy has some lose parts in his brains and he has dishonored the OU community with his lower then low tactics. I am just totally insulted by his actions against Rosemary. Just get rid of him fast.

wattsup - you're a honey.  I'm afraid I'm not sure about those files of yours because I can't open them.  But Wilby is making good use of it.  Many thanks indeed.  And possibly there's another forum where they can also go.  So it's looking promising.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: fuzzytomcat on November 14, 2010, 03:48:40 AM

More to the point - do you understand the meaning of the word DEFAMATION?  I am absolutely NOT GUILTY OF PERJURY.  To be guilty you will need to prove that I am precluded from publishing the submitted paper to the TIE - IEEE.   Perjury would require that I CLAIMED THAT IT WAS PUBLISHED.  I go to some considerable efforts both publicly here and in an explanation of the publication on SCRIBD to assure EVERYONE THAT THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED. I rely on this.  It gives the cause enormous POLITICAL CAPITAL.  HOWEVER.  Now that Scribd have removed the paper PENDING AN INVESTIGATION - and as HARTI is about to remove my thread - there will be ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THIS.  Again.  To those of you who care enough.  Please make copies of that thread that is about to be deleted.

@Glen.  You need to remind us all how you stated on my thread - that thread that is about to be deleted - that 'everyone knows that you have sole copyright'.  There are seven authors.  ANY ONE OF THOSE SEVEN AUTHORS ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO PUBLISH THAT PAPER ANYWHERE THEY DEEM FIT. IN THE EVEN THAT THEY RECEIVE ROYALTIES FOR THIS THEN THAT MUST BE SHARED BETWEEN ALL THE COLLABORATORS.  You do NOT have sole copyright.  And if you try and register sole copyright then you will have PERJURED YOURSELF.  That is the meaning of perjury GLEN and I strongly propose you get familiar with the term.

Also.  You PERJURED YOURSELF previously when you wrote to Scribd to advise them that you REPRESENTED THE SOLE COPYRIGHT OWNER.  Then too they withdrew the paper - PENDING AND INVESTIGATION.  And may I remind both you and all the readers here that the result of that investigation was the RE-INSTATEMENT OF THAT PAPER.  I am ENTIRELY SATISFIED that this will be done again.  I have NOT INFRINGED ANYONE'S COPYRIGHT NOR WRONGFULLY MISREPRESENTED THE STATUS OF THE PAPER.  ON THE CONTRARY.

And I believe I either have you or Harvey or both of you to thank for this latest intervention - ALL DONE in a desperate attempt to lose me any voice at all.

Rosemary



Edited spelling

Quote - By Rosemary Ainslie
I go to some considerable efforts both publicly here and in an explanation of the publication on SCRIBD to assure EVERYONE THAT THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED.


Then "EXACTLY" what is this IEEE authorized "Pre Print" document with all seven authors names on it ? published by FuzzyTomCat ??

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems



 ???
.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 03:57:13 AM
Quote - By Rosemary Ainslie
I go to some considerable efforts both publicly here and in an explanation of the publication on SCRIBD to assure EVERYONE THAT THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED.


Then "EXACTLY" what is this IEEE authorized "Pre Print" document with all seven authors names on it ? published by FuzzyTomCat ??

THE FILE IS A PDF OF THE PAPER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO TIE JOURNAL AND THE PREPRINT IS PROOF OF THAT SUBMISSION.  THE THEME OF THE SCRIBD PUBLICATION IS ITS OUTRIGHT - PRE REVIEW - REJECTION.  IT IS REFERENCED EVERYWHERE.   

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems



 ???
.

THE FILE IS A PDF OF THE PAPER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO TIE JOURNAL AND THE PREPRINT IS PROOF OF THAT SUBMISSION.  THE THEME OF THE SCRIBD PUBLICATION IS ITS OUTRIGHT - PRE REVIEW - REJECTION.  IT IS REFERENCED IN THE COMMENTS AND THROUGHOUT 2 THREADS BOTH HERE AND AT ENERGETIC FORUM.  Without that reference of submission there is NO PROOF OF HAVING SUBMITTED IT.

Rosemary

ADDED.  NOT ONLY WAS THIS PUBLISHED BUT WAS PUBLISHED AT ENERGETIC FORUM - BY MYSELF - WAS THE LETTER THAT PROPOSED THAT WE SUBMIT THE PAPER DIRECTLY TO A PHYSICS JOURNAL.  THAT IS WHAT YOU AND HARVEY SCUPPERED.  I HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER CLAIMED IMPLIED PRETENDED HINTED OR INTENDED TO ADVISE OUR PUBLIC THAT THE PAPER WAS ACCEPTED.  I GO OUT OF MY WAY TO ASSURE ALL READERS THAT IT WAS REJECTED PRIOR TO REVIEW.

And guys, just a point here.  The paper, there were two submissions of two different papers - never even made it to review.  This means that they could not fault the conclusions.  Else they would simply have rejected it out of hand which would have meant that we could never re-submit it.

That's the good news that Harvey, Glen et al - are anxious that you do not realise.

Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: fuzzytomcat on November 14, 2010, 04:05:33 AM
Quote - By Rosemary Ainslie
I go to some considerable efforts both publicly here and in an explanation of the publication on SCRIBD to assure EVERYONE THAT THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED.


Then "EXACTLY" what is this IEEE authorized "Pre Print" document with all seven authors names on it ? published by FuzzyTomCat ??

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems



 ???
.


Quote
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on Today at 03:48:40 AM

    Quote - By Rosemary Ainslie
    I go to some considerable efforts both publicly here and in an explanation of the publication on SCRIBD to assure EVERYONE THAT THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED.


    Then "EXACTLY" what is this IEEE authorized "Pre Print" document with all seven authors names on it ? published by FuzzyTomCat ??

    THE FILE IS A PDF OF THE PAPER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO TIE JOURNAL AND THE PREPRINT IS PROOF OF THAT SUBMISSION.  THE THEME OF THE SCRIBD PUBLICATION IS ITS OUTRIGHT - PRE REVIEW - REJECTION.  IT IS REFERENCED EVERYWHERE.   

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems



     ???
    .


  THE FILE IS A PDF OF THE PAPER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO TIE JOURNAL AND THE PREPRINT IS PROOF OF THAT SUBMISSION.  THE THEME OF THE SCRIBD PUBLICATION IS ITS OUTRIGHT - PRE REVIEW - REJECTION.  IT IS REFERENCED EVERYWHERE.   




@ Rosemary you modified and added this to my Quote ......is there no end to how far you will go ...





Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 04:20:56 AM

  THE FILE IS A PDF OF THE PAPER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO TIE JOURNAL AND THE PREPRINT IS PROOF OF THAT SUBMISSION.  THE THEME OF THE SCRIBD PUBLICATION IS ITS OUTRIGHT - PRE REVIEW - REJECTION.  IT IS REFERENCED EVERYWHERE.   

LOL  I've spent the last half hour trying to understand your complaint.  Seems like a made a typo.  I do this often.  Usually I pick it up. 

Your problem Glen is that you assume that everyone here is a fool.  The readership on OU.COM is absolutely nothing like the readership at EF.Com.  Far more discerning.  You'll need to up the ante.  And trying to capitalise on clear typos is not going to convince anyone.  Especially when they're mine.  I'm half blind remember.

ADDED.  BTW.  Nice HIGHLIGHTING.  It's a comfort that the point has now been made over and over...and over.  Thank you for that.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: tak22 on November 14, 2010, 06:16:09 AM
hmm ... another mugged topic, taken over by the Magic Heater crowd.

it's laughable, ironic, sad, pathetic, amusing, and on and on and on ...

get back on topic or go away. it's that simple.

tak
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 07:10:41 AM
hmm ... another mugged topic, taken over by the Magic Heater crowd.

it's laughable, ironic, sad, pathetic, amusing, and on and on and on ...

get back on topic or go away. it's that simple.

tak

Hello tak - if the subject were that trivial I would agree with you.  This 'magic heater system' that you dismiss so readily is in need of all the attention it can get.  And I'm not sure why it's off topic.  This thead topic is 'off OU topic distractions'.  It's got everything to do with being forced off topic by a barrage of distractions.  And nor is it necessary to tell me with so little decency and good manners to 'go away'.  As it I'm being forced away together with that 'magic heating system'.  More's the pity.  My concern in any event is that it's magic does not disappear into the clutches of interested parties.  I would have thought our OU community would be rather more concerned than otherwise.  With respect.  After all I am not a beneficiary.  I am only trying to advance a technology.  And I do it on a full-time basis - my health or wealth - or lack thereof - notwithstanding.  Do you?

Rosemary
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: DeepCut on November 14, 2010, 10:55:06 AM
This is a Free Energy forum, not a Wasted Energy forum.

Rosie i suggest you ignore people criticising you.

Don't even reply to this just ignore the crap.


Best Wishes, Gary.
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 01:32:50 PM
ANOTHER OPEN LETTER TO HARTIBERLIN

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE MY OWN THREAD.  JUST LOCK IT.  ELSE WE WILL ALL LOSE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON THAT THREAD THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE PUT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN - IN GOOD FAITH - AND FOR PERMANENT RECORD.  THIS RELATES NOT ONLY TO THE WORK ON THE THESIS - BUT TO THE APPLICATION OF THAT WORK ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A MAGNETIC MONOPOLE.  ELSE THERE WILL BE NO DUE AND PROPER RECORD.  AND THAT WORK WILL BE LOST WHICH WILL ENABLE THE OUTRIGHT THEFT OF THAT TECHNOLOGY AND THAT THESIS.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

In case you missed this open letter.  Please read this Harti.  I think you are making an enormous error in deleting when locking would more than serve your purposes.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

BTW Read those posts on that very short thread.  Please.  I don't think it will take that much of your time and it is my defense.  Thus far I do not understand why you need to delete.  Just LOCK.  For pity's sake.


Guys,  I have messaged Harti, yet again.  I am not defending the mismanagement of that thread.  I am simply asking that he don't delete it.  If any of you feel strongly enough about this perhaps you could add to my request here in a pm to him.  Thank you.

regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: b4FreeEnergy on November 14, 2010, 03:08:40 PM
Glen,

What is it you want? I don’t get it anymore!

You got Rosemary off the Energetic forum, you got her now as good as off the Overunity forum.
You made contact with the South African university where she managed to convince people to at least have a look at the circuit themselves and do their own measurements. She in fact actually told them, don’t take my word for it but measure it yourself and then tell me what you think.  You caused a lot of hassle and troubles contacting those university people and introduced a huge delay before the tests on Rosemarie’s circuit could actually start. And it is inside a university finally this time as well for goodness sake.

I thought you were one of the people trying to have those new energy sources (re-)introduced in the world as soon as possible? Now I start wondering if you might be one of the MIB! Is someone paying you to sabotage Rosemarie’s threads? Is what she is trying to show so frightening to certain people they feel an urgent need to suppress it whatever it takes? Yesterday I went to the movies to see “Fair Game” of Doug Liman. It gives a clear picture of what the American government is capable of doing and it’s not a nice picture. It makes you wondering what they would do or how far they would go if something is about to come out what they really don’t want to come out. Frightening! Is it that Glen, are you one of them?

You posted loads of links and emphasized sentences and words with all colors of the rainbow. I think you made your point, can’t you just continue with your life now and concentrate on positive things again? What good will come out of this crusade of yours? Besides, who has the time to read all this? Really going to the bottom of it would take several weeks I guess, full time. I don’t have the time for that and quite frankly I don’t want to do it either. To find out what in the end? That Rosemary did a few things she would better have done or phrased in another way? Big deal!

We’re not interested in the semantics, we’re interested in real results, we want free energy for everybody. Didn’t the big oil and nuclear energy companies cause enough damage and pollution already? Isn’t it time to start using energy sources that do not destroy the very habitat we are living in? I saw Stephan closing Rosemary’s thread with the words that winter stands for the door and we still don’t have free energy available to heat our houses. We want to go ‘off’ grid and have every single house with a neat and small energy cell, not polluting and certainly not ‘controlled’ by some government.
 
I may be just a naïve dreamer but really, what is it that you want?

Bart
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: powercat on November 14, 2010, 06:04:23 PM
Hi b4FreeEnergy
That was a very good post, I don't know if Glen is MIB, but he certainly seems to have lost the plot
with his repetitive ranting,he is like a two year old having a tantrum.

Stefan
make Wattsup the moderator and let him sort out this mess

cat
Title: Re: off OU topic distractions
Post by: hartiberlin on November 14, 2010, 07:00:33 PM
Okay, I think it is better to set all the battle people on
read only and keep the threads as they are and just lock them
now, as no new technology info is posted right here....

So, if the users who are battling about this come
again to a conclusion, that they want to share their
newest hardware findings and will post
circuit diagrams, they should just contact me via email
and I will reenable their postings right.

I think this is the best compromise for now.

Regards, Stefan.