Theoversightcommittee

Original content

You have just posted a large amount of original content at Talk:Thomas E. Bearden, which is inappropriate, even on a talk page. Please remove this content and replace with a link or reference. - Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I put it in here because it is not easily referenced as it is a file that required downloading. I want people to see and address these points. They are directly relevant to the discussion, and because they have not been substantially addressed and only superficially talked about, I feel they need to be put on the table. Your point is that it is a large amount of content, so I will concede that and break it up into smaller chunks and present the points systematically in order to be handled until they are exhausted. I will present the first section of the paper and then link to the remainder. Once we dispense of the first section, then I will post the second section, and so on. Certainly this will help us stay focused. (By the way, why are your comments on the talkpage not showing up on my watch list?)--Theoversightcommittee (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire material needs to be removed very soon. Wikipedia is not a discussion board or forum. Wikipedia is a reference to notable material. Please remove all material quickly. Also, please do not modify or alter the order or content of other user contribution on talk pages. Your entries are becoming a disruption to Wikipedia, please do not continue discussing your original research, or post primary sources. Thank you for adding the reference to the Free Energy news site; this was a valuable addition. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jens, I disagree as these are allowable "quotes" for discussing the issue of the Theoretical Justification of the claims made by Bearden, which effect the basis of your claims that he is presenting "pseudo-science", which you are clearly on an openly stated crusade against. I don't believe you have the ability to prove or state these opinions at this juncture, since you are not even a PhD yourself and have not take the pains to prove him wrong through any scientific process or even review.

Since you have an openly stated agenda, I am here to make sure you stick to a NPOV. At this point, I EQUALLY suspect the integrity of the arguments made by Bearden and his detractors like your good self and Prebys. I am not impressed by the way Bearden went about his PhD, not the way you are going about suppressing the discussion about the integrity of his science. You curiously have no qualms about discussing the integrity of his character, however. REG FLAGS are flying all over my screen here. I suspect you are not being neutral or fair on this page.

This is my frank and honest humble opinion. So far as the accepted consensus information contained on this subject in Wikipedia (specifically in relation to 2nd law of thermodynamics) suggests that you may again be in error (reference your talk page on theories you initially suspected psuedo-science by Charles Musè an admitted friend of aliens) of your unprovable contention that these people are pseudo-scientists. Clearly your initial judgments have a proven (self-admitted) tendency towards error. So why should I be moved by them, and why should you post them?

Why you, a person who claims no interest whatsoever in Bearden's work, would take all this time and effort to discredit and suppress an open debate on his biography is spurious in the very least. Truly no offense is intended here. But neither am I obliged to turn a blind eye to what I am seeing, or mute my observations. I feel obliged to do so for the sake of maintaining the NPOV of this encyclopedia. I feel your time would be better spent proving your claims and personal judgments against Bearden BEFORE posting them here (in the Wiki and/or talk page for Bearden).

Now, if you want to remove the quotes of Bearden that serve the discussion on the matter of your claim of his propagation of psuedo-science, then remove all the references to his propagating psuedo-science. Otherwise defend your claims by defeating his claims point-for-point. I am all for discrediting psuedo-science. I am not at all defending or attacking Bearden. Prove he is a pseudo-scientist and I will personally begin his biography with those very words.

Neither am I inordinately impressed by any degree, but by well meaning and reasonable statements (which I stick to without the need to make blatant self-serving references to my advanced degrees; which is why you will never see me do so...let my statements swim or sink on their own merit).

It is funny that you make the statement that "Wiki is not a discussion board" on a page titled "Discussion" (which exists on every Wiki page, as we all know). You are trying to stifle a legitimate discussion on relevant topics concerning the validity of a living person's biography, which is a very sensitive matter. I believe Bearden (and even you) deserve more consideration than that. I would do the same for you if you hypothetically came under fire as a RWA right wind authoritarian scientist with an atheistic elitist agenda (not that you are). I wouldn't let someone flagrantly discredit and bury you and the potential value of your work,which may hold great value to the world. So don't mistake me as your enemy or the enemy of Wiki and science. I am just really neutral and have a great aversion for BS and high handedness.

How is moving a discussion on Bearden's degree from an irrelevant section on theoretical justification to the relevant section titled "Degree Mill" considered "disruptive"? Am I just supposed to swallow that one? Well, I disagree with you. I did not change the sequence of comments made in that discussion, I just put them in their proper place like any good editor would do. And where do I discuss my original research?

You say "Wiki is a reference to notable material", and what is more notable in the discussion of your claims of "pseudo-science" against a scientist other than his scientific claims (the material i posted that you say "needs to be quickly removed")? I feel you are disturbing the discussion on the debate of Bearden's credibility as a scientist and I request you to immediate cease and desist from making such obstructive demands that will not be heeded.

Finally, I suggest that you need to chill out (and I will follow my own advice by not trying to suppress your contributions or make baseless claims against you either). Fair? --Theoversightcommittee (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Thomas E. Bearden for my response. Koeplinger (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)