"Retic Postings and SPAM"

There have been multiple accusations that the postings of H.
E. Retic are SPAM. The writer's postings are carefully constructed so as
remain
within the commonly accepted rules concerning SPAM, to wit:

1. Postings of essentially identical material shall not be
made to more than eight Newsgroups. The writer has limited his postings to
seven
Newsgroups.

2. Postings of essentially identical material shall not be
made more frequently than every 14 days. The writer's posting are separated
by a
longer time span.

3. Postings shall be reasonably close to the topic to which
the Newsgroups is dedicated. My postings are closer to being on topic for
each
Newsgroup than are most of the postings within that group.

4. The postings shall not be used for commercial purposes.
They are not.

5. There shall be no alteration of the header material of the
postings. While the postings are made under many different E-mail names,
however
man ISPS provide for multiple user names and permits them to be altered at
will.
None of the writer's actions constitute SPAM as it is currently
defined.
The accusations that the writer is a SPAMMER can reasonably
considered to be the slanderous behavior of sick minds. My postings are to
de
facto public newsgroups which, as such, cannot limit their postings to
material
that agrees with the majority viewpoint and still retain their legitimacy.
That
type of censorship is legitimate only when done by moderated groups. To
avoid
this censorship, the writer has made use of AOL's useful capability of
allowing
user name changes. (It has been alleged that such changes are the
characteristic
of a "crank". They are not, they are the response of any reasonable
individual
whose ideas are being suppressed.)

The writer concludes that the strident protest against the
writer's postings can only result from fear, otherwise why wouldn't they
just be
ignored if the content were thought not to be valid. After all, there are
many
more foolish postings than mine made to these Newsgroups without evoking
complaint. The only reason for the complaints would seem to be that the
complainer is not upset by the fact the posted material is "wrong", he is
upset
by the idea that they challenge what he has been taught and he may be forced
to
"go back to the drawing board" and relearn his physics.

Even more sinister is the possibility that the complainers
know that their science is defective and wish to shield it from question
from
students of the subject. Such questions make it much more difficult to
indoctrinate students with the "one true faith" which must not be
questioned. It
should be noted that the complainers have not attempted to answer any of the
basic questions which have been raised, instead they have resorted to
vilification.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm .

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals
who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
If
anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.