Posted by amdx on January 28, 2012, 9:01 pm
On 1/28/2012 2:33 PM, Mho wrote:
> His funding and job was cut. There won't be a next year, apparently.
> No need for name calling. State your case.
> -----------
> "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
> In other words, you're just being lame.
> ------
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:22:49 -0600, amdx wrote:
>> A year from now, we will know, but then we won't need a newsgroup. If
>> the the technology is proven, we will need forums and websites to help
>> us all build our own.
>>
>> Mikek
> His funding and job was cut. There won't be a next year, apparently.
>
> No need for name calling. State your case.
I don't see any name calling.
Mikek
Posted by Mho on January 29, 2012, 3:01 am
Well if the shoe fits....
-----------
I don't see any name calling.
Mikek
Posted by Roberto Deboni DMIsr on February 1, 2012, 8:06 pm
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:33:28 -0600, amdx wrote:
> Hi all,
> Anyone want to discuss creating a LENR newsgroup.
>
> My first thought is;
>
> alt.lenr
>
> Here's a tutorial for alt.** newsgroups.
>
> http://nylon.net/alt/
>
> I don't have the time, knowledge, or determination to follow this idea
> through to completion.
>
> I do want stimulate the desire in someone else.
What is wrong with alt.energy.nuclear ?
It has very low traffic, so I don't see any need for a subgroup,
like alt.energy.nuclear.lner
When I search about nuclear news, I start with alt.energy.nuclear
or similar (why otherwise ?).
The only reason to create e new NG is to "forget" the archived
history, unless you like to add, every year, new titles in your
newsgroup reader. Or your scope is to create an "exclusive" club,
without connections with other nuclear matters, like you would
do with a religion, very you w'ont discuss with other faiths ?
--
Roberto Deboni
[Messaggio Usenet via Tiscali su text.giganews.com. Se leggete via Web
il sottoscritto informa che non conosce o partecipa al sito/forum Web.]
Posted by Marvin the Martian on February 2, 2012, 12:33 am
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:06:38 -0600, Roberto Deboni DMIsr wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:33:28 -0600, amdx wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> Anyone want to discuss creating a LENR newsgroup.
>>
>> My first thought is;
>>
>> alt.lenr
>>
>> Here's a tutorial for alt.** newsgroups.
>>
>> http://nylon.net/alt/
>>
>> I don't have the time, knowledge, or determination to follow this idea
>> through to completion.
>>
>> I do want stimulate the desire in someone else.
>
> What is wrong with alt.energy.nuclear ?
>
> It has very low traffic, so I don't see any need for a subgroup, like
> alt.energy.nuclear.lner
>
> When I search about nuclear news, I start with alt.energy.nuclear or
> similar (why otherwise ?).
>
> The only reason to create e new NG is to "forget" the archived history,
> unless you like to add, every year, new titles in your newsgroup reader.
> Or your scope is to create an "exclusive" club, without connections with
> other nuclear matters, like you would do with a religion, very you w'ont
> discuss with other faiths ?
IIRC, sci.physics.fusion was created for cold fusion discussion right
after P&F discovered cold fusion.
Idiot trolls killed all discussion, insulted the researchers right out of
the group, and the group was abandoned.
Posted by Bill Snyder on February 2, 2012, 12:40 am
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:33:56 -0600, Marvin the Martian
>On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:06:38 -0600, Roberto Deboni DMIsr wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:33:28 -0600, amdx wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> Anyone want to discuss creating a LENR newsgroup.
>>>
>>> My first thought is;
>>>
>>> alt.lenr
>>>
>>> Here's a tutorial for alt.** newsgroups.
>>>
>>> http://nylon.net/alt/
>>>
>>> I don't have the time, knowledge, or determination to follow this idea
>>> through to completion.
>>>
>>> I do want stimulate the desire in someone else.
>>
>> What is wrong with alt.energy.nuclear ?
>>
>> It has very low traffic, so I don't see any need for a subgroup, like
>> alt.energy.nuclear.lner
>>
>> When I search about nuclear news, I start with alt.energy.nuclear or
>> similar (why otherwise ?).
>>
>> The only reason to create e new NG is to "forget" the archived history,
>> unless you like to add, every year, new titles in your newsgroup reader.
>> Or your scope is to create an "exclusive" club, without connections with
>> other nuclear matters, like you would do with a religion, very you w'ont
>> discuss with other faiths ?
>IIRC, sci.physics.fusion was created for cold fusion discussion right
>after P&F discovered cold fusion.
>Idiot trolls killed all discussion, insulted the researchers right out of
>the group, and the group was abandoned.
You misspelled, "Grandiose claims, never backed up by the tiniest
shred of evidence, and the consequent ridicule, led the
hype-mongers to adjourn to their own web boards where they could
lie as much as they liked and never be mocked, while the sane
people lost interest and wandered off."
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
XML site map
> No need for name calling. State your case.
> -----------
> "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
> In other words, you're just being lame.
> ------
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:22:49 -0600, amdx wrote:
>> A year from now, we will know, but then we won't need a newsgroup. If
>> the the technology is proven, we will need forums and websites to help
>> us all build our own.
>>
>> Mikek