Javier Bezos ha escrito:

Juan R.:
The UNJUSTICE was that Bezos argued that i manipulated
quotes and that the Pauli quote that i cited had been
manipulated by me.

1) I never claimed you changed or manipulated the quote.
NEVER EVER. This is FALSE. (I think you have been influenced
by the meaning of the Spanish word "truncar", which has
indeed very negative connotations. This word is very
similar to the English "truncate", but they are not the
same.)

From http://www.allwords.com/word-truncate.html

"To cut something, eg a tree, word, piece of writing, etc, so as to
shorten it"

On my personal dictionary Englisd-Spanish one can read "truncate" =
"truncar". Also would cite the dictionary?

Perhaps i would remember to our readers the polemic post.

Javier Bezos 15 oct 13:02 in sci.physics research thread "Why isn't
the mathematician Henri Poincare acknowledged as the true discoverer of
special relativity?" wrote

"It would be interesting to know the reference to see the
context (1955 was an interesting year for several reasons).
As it has been shown here repeated times you very often
truncate the citations in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors.

Read the Preface of the Theory of Relativity where Pauli
categorically claims: "Eintein, the creator of the theory
of relativity". And please, read the _whole_ Preface since
it repeats this claim several times (the last paragraph,
for example)."

The Pauli quote i cited was:

"Both Einstein and Poincare, took their stand on the preparatory work
of H.A. Lorentz, who had already come quite close to the result,
without however quite reaching it. In the agreement between the results
of the methods followed independently of each other by Einstein and
Poincare I discern a deeper significance of a harmony between the
mathematical method and analysis by means of conceptual experiments
(Gedankenexperimente), which rests on general features of physical
experience."

I do NOT truncate the citation in order to change the true intentions
of theirs authors that was your UNFOUNDED acusation. I copied and
pasted the EXACT quote i obtained from reference i cited many times.
Therefore your claim i truncated the citation in order to change the
true intentions of theirs authors WAS an UNFOUNDED acusation.

If you are a honest man you would recognize that your acusation was
unfounded and you would retire it now once you are verified by yourself
i did not truncate anything "in order to change the true intentions of
theirs authors".

If you do that here now, i will explain in my open letter that you are
did a simple mistake but rectified. Therefore i would see no problem
with you and the only remaining problem would be with moderators on
sci.physics.research who blocked to me from post the page and reference
from where i obtained the Pauli quote.

2) Don't blame me by the moderators decision to ban you.
I'm not responsible for their decisions. Anyone can see I'm
willing to admit an error and to rectify. I'm willing to
admit my wording was not very fortunate, but I'll never
admit I said something I never said.

I am not blaming you by moderators decision. I am just proving that you
acusation was unfounded and I am NOT doing you responsible from
moderators decision, but obviously you are part of the problem and
therefore your name was cited. If you admit that your acusation was
unfounded and i simply copied and paste the Pauli quote without
truncation for -in your OWN words "in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors" then people would understand -i am sure-
that you did an initial error but just corrected it after. There is not
problem for doing mistkaes if one correct them. I also make mistakes.

3) You have not provided yet a reference to see the context
_where Pauli said that_, which is what I was asking for to
see the true intentions of him. What we have is just an
extract (which by definition implies the original text has
been truncated somehow) you have taken literally from a
paper and which you have repeated over and over again like a
stuck record so that I have almost learnt it by heart. If
you don't know where Pauli said that (and _not_ where you
took the quote from) or the context just say something like
"I took the quote from that paper, but it in turn doesn't
give any reference either" instead of digging in with a
flame.

I did, i cited the EXACT page and reference from where i obtained the
quote. I am not discussing with you if the quote is acurate or not or
what was the proper historical context. You EXACTLY claimed that

"As it has been shown here repeated times you very often
truncate the citations in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors."

And i PROVED that i copied and pasted the EXACT quote i obtained from
the reference i cited MANY times without truncations. This thread is
not about if the quote is correct, incorrect, real, irreal, etc. I
COPIED word by word from Logunov article, therefore your accusation was
UNFOUNED. That is all!

4) Go and buy a copy of Pauli's book (it's Dover, therefore
it's cheap). Read the Preface, but read as well the notes
he wrote in 1956 -- 24 pages where the name of Poincaré
doesn't appear at all (on the contrary, he says his original
attribution to Schwarzschild and Poincaré of the Lorenzt
invariance of the action integral was a historical mistake
since it was stablished by Larmor in 1900; see p. 216).
I'm just trying to understand the _apparent_ contradiction
between your quote and this book and the only way to do that
is if I (we) have the proper context and, therefore, the
original reference of the quote.

I already read the preface of Pauli book and also the chapter about
history he wrote. I also read some correspondence with Klein where
Pauli expressed his doubts about Einstein paternity and Klein who was a
fervent admired of Einstein did pressure on Pauli for him changed 'his'
view of history and the initial version of the book was newer
published. Then Klein was an important guy and remember Pauli was a
young man (still without Nobel). Perhaps this can help you to
understand why Pauli maintained two versions. He recieved presure for
writing that Einstein WAS the father of relativity. Somewhat as last
year, Winterberg paper (AGAINST Einstein priority) was rejected by
Science without serious arguments (Winterberg explains the polemic of
rejection in appendix of paper). Or somewhat as some months ago, Peter
Woit received radical presure from string theorists his book critizing
string theory was newer published. Etc, Etc.

If you rectify your unfounded acusation against me i will forget this
unpleasant part of our debate on history of relativity and will send
to you a copy of manuscript i am preparing.

In that manuscript you are aknowledged because you pointed a previous
error mine in spr. However, i will continue my publicitation of
moderators unjustice in media and also i will add an apendix on this
unpleasant topic in the final version of the manucsript.

If you rectify your unfounded accusation, you rectification will be
introduced into the appendix.

The same if moderators also rectity buy by now they have not formally
reply.

That is all by my part here.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)