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 AOL provides
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. (A suggestion,
they might try lying on the floor and kicking their feet.) THE WORLD IS
ENTITLED TO BETTER WORKMANSHIP THAN IT HAS GOTTEN FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED
WORLD CLASS STATUS.

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity" (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm
.. 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.

Please either respond via E-Mail or back any response to a Newsgroup with
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.

For a response send E-Mail to

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. The failure of such rebuttal to
appear is deafening. Responses asking for a continuation of the postings after
a modem failure produced two days of down time has been most gratifying.

I read your book. You are just as guilty of magic
thinking as they are. You lay no groundwork whatsoever
for what you say. And, you do not stay on subject any
better than the average Physics text or article I have
read over the years. You use the same trick of being
logical and reasonable for 3 pages, and then you do
some arm waving, and out of that comes all the rest
of what you conclude, and your argument typically is
impossible to follow. I've been reading across this
field for about 6 months now, and so far, I have found
maybe 3 resources that seem logical and strive for
clarity, or at least to explain the state of the art. I have
thrown nearly 100 in the garbage where they belong,
and your book was one of the first to go.

johns