We have also decided, that there is 'no longer' any need for us, to fear
the machinations of progress; as the government can now be trusted to do
that for us.
<<
I apologize if my wording or lack of clear communication may have offended
some. My point was to attempt to illustrate that the WAY in which we choose
to DEMONSTRATE a working device, which displays radical new technology can
have some serious consequences.
As such my purpose was simply to suggest that one carefully consider the
ramifications of those consequences.
Pons and Fleishman, were in my opinion, figuratively "burned at the stake" by
their own peers in the scientific community. They may or may not have had
something new and radical, but just the possibility, plastered over all the
world's media in such a "shocking" manner, certainly drew the ire of many.
Learning from this mistake of presentation - would seem to this lost soul, to
be a wise contemplation.
And unsaid, but touched upon in my later message about water thoughts - is
that indeed, any who dares introduce "free energy" or other such radical
technology, will be facing some very stiff opposition from mainstream
science, Government, and business interests. So my intention in the comments
made about a "walking on water" demo - were meant to say - Why add to this
burden of opposition by antagonizing certain religious groups/individuals?
(who are free to believe whatever they like - and that is a good thing)
As to the personal attacks, insinuating my prejudice, and paranoia:
- Perhaps a healthy dose of paranoia is the secret to a long and happy life!
As long as one's own sense of discrimination - a useful and necessary tool
for survival - does not get too far out of balance.
- And if I may remind you of the dictionary definition of "Prejudice": an
unreasonable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge,
thought, or reason.
SWB's very message contains the evidence for my reasoned opinion - that it
might be best not to deliberately offend religious (or any fundamentalist)
beliefs that have been long held. His examples of the deluded few who
perpetrate acts of violence in the name of their belief - are very strong
support for my taking such a cautious, REASONED approach to the METHOD of
demonstration of new ideas.
Indeed the acerbic tone of his response to my suggestion is further evidence
as to why one should strive not to offend - or to offend as few as is
possible of any belief - in disseminating new ideas.
I am, sadly, NOT a good diplomat, and would do poorly at being center stage
for any such endeavor. (as you can clearly see from my wording of the
original message I posted on this topic)
So again my wording may have been improper, and I obviously failed to
communicate the idea/suggestion clearly. As such I apologize to any who were
offended by the blanket statement of "religious fundamentalists, or
fanatics".
I should have made it more broad to include those with
fundamentalist/fanatical points of view about any topic - including ELEMENTS
OF: the eco deluded, the "new ager" mentality, or the anarchists, or the
luddites (such as the unibomber), etc.
My personal opinion about this is that an out of balance point of view in any
area, is a major source of discord, problems and perhaps a lot of the
violence in today's global society. Maybe I am out to lunch.
I apologize to all the members for wasting your time with this obvious
diversion from the stated purpose of this discussion forum. And I will make
every effort to refrain from repeating this mistake!
Sincerely,
DMBoss1021
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------