Re:[OFF TOPIC]Economics of FE/Plan of attack!

John Berry ( antigrav@ihug.co.nz )
Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:49:39 +1300

<x-html><HTML>
Free energy can be stopped if all information is not spread correctly (spread
ALL information with results of tests), It can be stopped if the plan of
getting the free energy device out is too slow (make the plan as fast as
possible after release of information), it can be stopped if the people
can be stopped the people can only be stopped if there is a small number
of people so that they could be harassed, blackmailed, killed, paid off
(safety in numbers or as hexslngr said "DECENTRALIZATION ON ALL LEVELS"),
Free energy can be stopped if you trust people and it can be stopped if
you don't trust people (Trust <U>everyone</U> but don't give anyone the
ability to harm you or in other words trust everyone with nothing that
they can stuff up or destroy), Free energy can be stopped by your own greed
or agenda (make your ONLY agenda that of getting free energy devices in
every home, Money or fame is just the sugar on top, take it if it comes
but don't demand it, Don't let it get in your way it's not really worth
it)
<BR>Last I have seen one person release a lot of good information but do
no real good as it appeared as though he had not tried it him self as he
gave no experimental results (Make sure people know you are claiming verifed
experimental resualts and give as many details so people know it is not
just a load of BS)

<P>The answer to FREE energy should be FREE to everyone and no one should
be stopped from making, using or selling these devices.
<BR>&nbsp;

<P>John Berry
<BR>&nbsp;

<P>hexslngr@internet-frontier.net wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Hi Dr Jones, et al...

<P>... I dunno, I'm sorta with Ken. I'd like to continue this FE Economics
<BR>thread, but perhaps this isn't the best place to do it? This is supposed
<BR>to be a technical discussion (or at least that's my impression). The
<BR>Economics of FE (marketing, sales, distribution, etc) *NEEDS* to be
<BR>discussed - but if people are unwilling to listen, I'd be more than
happy
<BR>to take that discussion elsewhere. Take it to e-mail or find us some
quiet
<BR>mail-list or IRC channel or SOMETHING.

<P>At any rate -- my whole reason for bringing up the economics tie-in
is
<BR>that many people seem to think that somehow they're going to change
the
<BR>world overnight and all the established businesses are just going to
turn
<BR>a blind eye to them. That's like walking into combat thinking the enemy
<BR>isn't going to shoot you dead. Clearly strategic use of economic
<BR>principles *MUST* be utilized by inventors -- or their inventions are
just
<BR>going to rot in burning hell. Also, to those worried about people ripping
<BR>off their ideas and running them into the ground:

<P>Blow off. Seriously. Not to derail the topic, but remember IBM? Yeah,
<BR>those guys. They took the PC and made their technology available so
other
<BR>manufacturers could build PC-compatibles. They helped to establish
an
<BR>industry standard. But did they die? Of course not -- because once
they
<BR>set the standard, THEY LED BY EXAMPLE. I'm suprised nobody here figured
<BR>that out... or maybe I'm the only one who took economics in high school.
<BR>I dunno. I'm not trying to set anybody off -- I'm just rather miffed
at
<BR>the general attitude by folks who just want to brush off the economics
<BR>side of F/E altogether.</BLOCKQUOTE>
&nbsp;</HTML>
</x-html>.
Received: from ???@??? Sat Jan 24 23:59:16 1998
X-Persona: <IADFW Account>
Return-Path: <KeelyNet-L-return-246-danyork=iadfw.net@lists.kz>
Received: from lists.kz from [207.180.91.8] by mail.airmail.net
(/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.233) with smtp for <danyork@iadfw.net>
id <m0xwKzd-000Cp5B@mail.airmail.net> Sat, 24 Jan 98 23:52:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: (qmail 9037 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 1998 06:02:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact KeelyNet-L-help@lists.kz; run by ezmlm
Reply-To: KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Delivered-To: mailing list KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Received: (qmail 9017 invoked from network); 25 Jan 1998 06:01:56 -0000
Received: from chong.ihug.co.nz (root@203.29.160.10)
by mail.starfire.douglas.ma.us with SMTP; 25 Jan 1998 06:01:56 -0000
Received: from maitland.ihug.co.nz (p21-max3.well.ihug.co.nz [207.213.218.213]) by chong.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA11524 for <KeelyNet-L@lists.kz> Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:52:05 +1300
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:52:05 +1300
Message-Id: <199801250552.SAA11524@chong.ihug.co.nz>
X-Sender: maitland@pop.ihug.co.nz
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
From: Dr Jones <maitland@icarus.ihug.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Economics of FE/Plan of attack!

At 21:43 24/01/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, John Berry wrote:
>
>Hmm... alright then. [OFF TOPIC] it is! Hmmm... what really needs to be
>addressed are the issues of funding, sales revenue, and sales
>organization. Decentralization is the main theme here, since obviously
>everybody and their brother has reason to want to keep F/E under wraps

<etc>

What I forgot to include was the example set by David Cowlishaw with the
Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster. Easy to make and several people have
replicated the work and advanced it.

The thing about IBM and their PCs is that it was an advancement on previous
computer designs and one that everybody could make a lot of money out of.
Including IBM. It didn't replace a 5 trillion dollar industry. It created a
new one.
>
>Using F/E on the Manufacturing side is also a good idea. Away from prying
>eyes, you can use F/E to supplement your normal energy needs, and thus be
>able to live OFF the grid, rather than ON it. PG&E (or other local utility
>name here) can bite me.

Good advice coming thru here :)
>
>Principles before Profits, folks -- I can't stress it enough.
>If you have one shred of skill in your body, you can find a way to make
>money while still giving products away freely (Netscape does it -- giving
>away their browser while charging for the Server -- THAT's SMART
>BUSINESS). It's time we start treating this like a business/war-time
>simulation rather than just a technical passtime... because I'm sure as
>hell that everyone else is treating it as such, and hence why anyone who
>DOES come up with something that works gets SNUFFED.

Amen to that. But lets not forget what happening to Netscape at the moment.
And Netscape is a big, public company.
>
Dr Jones