sci.energy.hydrogen

On Jul 27, 2:27 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
> BradGuth wrote:
>
> | In this Usenet anti-think-tank land of mostly mainstream naysayism
> | (especially applied if you're not sufficiently Jewish) has been
> | obvious since the first time I'd posted anything related to my
> | research, as well as having been obvious as to how others like
> | yourself were being stalked, bashed and often banished (aka
> | moderated to death) whenever possible.
>
> I think you've missed something essential: The
> stalkers/spammers/trolls/(whatever) make _themselves_ irrelevant and
> not to be taken seriously. Why should you allow yourself to be drained
> of anything worthwhile by such?

It's these pesky brown-nosed Yiddish clowns that are keeping honest
folks, much like yourself, from seeing the clean and energy efficient
h2o2 light at the end of my Earth salvaging tunnel, plus being kept
from seeing many other truths (including your research) that we all
need to behold before it's too late. It's a necessary job for myself
to return the topic/author stalking and bashing favor, with all the
love and affection that I and my battery of lose cannons can muster.
Perhaps you should try it out.

>
> If your research is well founded, carefully executed, and well-enough
> documented that others can duplicate and confirm your findings, what
> can one (or a million) naysayers possibly subtract?

It's their continual disinformation flow of informercial crapolla
that's fully capable of flowing up hill, and of their infomercial lies
upon lies or merely their exclusing of whatever evidence suits their
current mindset, that's responsible for keeping the honest intent or
jist of whatever's being shared, as far away from getting properly
noticed by mainstream meadia as possible.

>
> | Clearly of anything that takes a cent of our energy loot away from
> | the likes of ENRON or Exxon becomes a fair enough target to snuff
> | out, instead of their having been constructively contributing or
> | otherwise promoting as to the honest what-if potential.
>
> Even if I were prepared to agree that this was true (which I'm not),
> there is at least one safe path: distribute the knowledge so widely
> that nothing done to you or those with whom you work could effect
> supression of that knowledge. If the knowledge clearly can't be
> supressed, then it becomes counter-productive to "snuff" the origin.

Once again, I totally agree, but meanwhile you obviously do not know
of the full scope of their puppeteering extent, vast global capability
of having been snookering humanity for all it's worth, or of their
ulterior motives derived from their Skull and Bones (aka Third Reich)
swarm like mindset.

>
> IMO, this may be one of the _most_ important contributions of the
> Internet and nntp.
>
> Damn the torpedos - full speed ahead!

I tend to agree, but keep watching your backside.
- Brad Guth