Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 2

message: We have been following this rather closely and may we suggest that nasty gossip be confined to Discussion and not put in Sarfatti's article.
For example, someone just falsely attributed Art Greenfield's words of "treason" and "death penalty" to Sarfatti in the article. I removed it and we hope it stays removed. Such nasty gossip and angry words made in the heat of battle, mainly from DES's dogged pursuit of Sarfatti's personal character is unseemly to say the least. DES is a member of Philadelphia Skeptics, which explains his Inquisitorial passion. DES should recuse himself as he has become the main problem in this debate. Ed Poors and Jimbo Wales need to intervene and block DES from vandalizing the Sarfatti article. In our modest and humble opinion DES has definitely crossed the line and has violated ethics if not Wiki rules. Once Sarfatti agrees that none of the content is unfair or seriously inaccurate, may we suggest that his article be permanently protected because he is such a controversial public figure raising both heat and light on both sides of the Culture War. Thank you all for letting us express our view. We are close to ending this whole dispute except for DES who now is the problem. DES is like K. Starr at Clinton's Impeachment. :-)
--UFO Black Ops[<SMALL>*</SMALL>]]  16 October 2005 (UTC)
:It is not Wikipedia policy to permanently protect articles because the subject is a controversial public figure (if this were the case, then George W. Bush would be protected permanently).  It is also not policy to permit the subject of an article to have veto or approval power over its content. *Dan T.* 17:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Sanity from UFO Black Ops

message: Hi Uncle Ed,
Dr. Jack Sarfatti is a brilliant theoretical physicist of the same caliber as Albert Einstein. Like Einstein, Dr. Sarfatti is working on advanced concepts that will lay the groundwork for the development of advanced systems such as Dark Energy propulsion, Dark Energy weapons, and Dark Energy power generating systems. Harnessing Dark Energy for propulsion, defense, and power will enable mankind to take a Quantum leap ahead of the nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources we now use. There has been a concerted all-out effort by extreme leftist and Islamofascist individuals to attack Dr. Sarfatti publicly in his online groups, by mass emailing, and by editing and redistributing articles about him on Wikipedia to include derogatory and false information. These repetitive daily attacks have been going on for several months with the purpose of disrupting Dr. Sarfatti's work and interfering with his communications with other physicists online in his groups. The reason for the attacks is to prevent any chance of an American Dark Energy program getting off the ground. Our enemies want to deploy Dark Energy weapons before we do to insure world domination. Our communist and Islamofascist enemies are also buying time in which to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US to destroy us. This is not a conspiracy theory. Interference with Dr. Sarfatti's defense work is a serious felony under US TITLE 18 >PART I >CHAPTER 115 >§ 2388 
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war 
Release date: 2005-08-03 
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so— 
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a). 
Additionally, pursuant to evidence developed during an investigation into a suspects contacts and activities, they can also be charged with treason under TITLE 18 >PART I >CHAPTER 115 >§ 2381 
§ 2381. Treason 
Release date: 2005-08-03 
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. 
Please cease and desist interfering with Dr. Sarfatti. Either erase the section on him or let him edit it one last time and freeze it, as he previously requested. Every time the conspirators change his Wikipedia profile to state that he is a crackpot or worse, and that his work is gibberish, they then post it in his groups and send it out in spam emails to his associates and bulk newsgroups. Allowing this to continue on the part of Wikipedia management after warning makes them an accessory to the crime. Wikipedia disclaimers protect management only from civil and not criminal prosecution. It is Wikipedia's vehicle through which Wikipedia management is allowing Islamofascist operatives to criminally and "willfully convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies." It is equivalent to a nationally distributed newspaper allowing enemy forces to write articles to sabotage or interfere with our war effort. This is not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to speech that will damage our defense capabilities and promote the success of our enemies in time of war. During the Civil War, President Lincoln ordered the jailing of 5000 newspaper editors and personnel without trial for the duration of the war because they wrote articles against the war or in support of the South. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and had 13,000 political opponents arrested for varying periods. About half of those arrested died in jail due to deplorable living conditions for prisoners. Prison conditions now are worse in some ways, like when your cell mate gives you the prison bitch name of "squealing piglet." <HaHa> This is just a friendly warning.  This is not your average troll problem as you at first thought. Due to the seriousness of this situation, you should have a chance to straighten out this problem before it becomes a federal case. I've found Wikipedia to be a useful source of information on many occasions and I have no interest in seeing Wikipedia shut down. 
Thanks,
Art Greenfield
   
antigray@cs.com
:Are you talking to me? I'm the number one person around here helping Jack: I'm not thwarting him at all. And unless you withdraw your implicit legal threat against me, I will not object to your Wikipedia account being blocked indefinitely. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." Uncle Ed 18:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Art Greenfield

message: :I would love to see a test case in which soemone tried to apply the above quoted statute to a public web page reporting truthefully that others have epressed negative views of soemone workign for the US Government. Any such case would obviously be blocked as it would involve a clear violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In any case the above law does not apply of its own terms, as we are not legally "at war" -- Congress not having passed a Declaration of War. I do not for a moment belive that any US Attourny would file such a case. The above citation is, IMO nothing but an attempt to use "Fear, Uncertantinty, and Doubt" to impose a pro-Sarfetti POV on the articel. it may well be a PoV that Mr. Greenfield honestly holds. That does not, of couirse, give him or anyone else the right to dictate the content of a wikipedia article. This is also a further blatent violation of the no legal threats policy. DES (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And since when is anybody who dares to criticize the saintly and brilliant Mr. Sarfatti a "leftist or Islamofascist"?  I, myself, am neither. *Dan T.* 00:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to comments by Art Greenfield

message: From Art: In response to your post that the federal laws do not apply because there is no "declared war," perhaps you should consult the Wikipedia section on "Declared Wars" where it shows that both houses of Congress voted to authorize the "Iraq War" which is still ongoing in Iraq. See:
Declaration of war by the United States
 wiki-link corrected, and text copied from page linked above deleted from this page since the link is right here. DES (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Art Greenfield (#2)

message: :No one disputes, or at least i do not, that military combat is occuring in Iraq. That is not the same thing as a legal "state of war". Many laws that specified that they applied only in "time of war" were held not to apply during the Korean "War"/"police action" and during the confict in Vietnam (which was common called a war but never formally declared to be one). 
:In any case, state of war or not, publicly commenting on the public reputation of a public figure is a clearly protected activity under the First Admendment, and any law that purports to criminalize such activity, even during a declared war, is going to be tough to defend in court. Furthermore, just how does commenting on Sarfatti's reputation harm the national security? Are agencies of the U.S. government not going to use his services because of what is said about him (however negative) on wikipedia, or on usenet? Is some reputable physicist who he needs to cooperate with going to decline because of this article, in spite of his wonderful accomplishments which Art Greenfield attests to above? If his reputation can be severly damaged becaue wikipedia says that people on usenet say he is a "kook" or that his theories are "nonsense", then just how strong was his reputation in any case? Use some common sense here. DES (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to comments by Art Greenfield (#2)

message: I have not sent email or anything else "directly to Dr. Sarfatti and the group of physicists he works with" I have posted in a public forum. If Mr. Sarfatti choses to read that forum, that is not my affair. if he choses to take time to consider how to respond, that is also not my afair. Nothing that I have written could be considered by any reaonable peron as "hate mail" even if it had been sent directly to Sarfatti, which it wasn't. If you really think you can have these actions prosecuted as criminal acts, call the US Attorny for New Jersey. Good luck. If I hear from the governmet, i'll let people know here, and I'll see what the ACLU has to say about the matter. I am not holding my breath. Frankly, if attending to my comments is delaying what Sarfatti is doing for the US Government (assuming that he is actually working for the USG) then there is probably a significant saving of tax money. That is, of course, only my personal opnion. In any case, there is a clear policy here "No legal threats" which you are persistantly violating. if you think my acts are criminal you had better address them through the criminal system, not by posting on wikipedia. DES (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't sent any direct communications to Mr. Sarfatti either, nor have I threatened anybody with anything.  Nevertheless, he seems to sometimes be including me in his legal threats.  So, go ahead and send the FBI to my door; that should be good for a few laughs. *Dan T.* 13:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, some of the above comments from Greenfield seem to be implying that the physicists in question are conducting highly critical defense research via Usenet newsgroups.  This seems rather preposterous.  Isn't that stuff supposed to be Top Secret, in which case a public newsgroup would hardly be the appropriate place to conduct it? *Dan T.* 14:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to comments by Art Greenfield (#3)

message: I agree "wildly incorrect" isn't a good way of putting it, but we need something stronger than just "incorrect". Incorrect also covers "you forgot a minus sign on page 23", which this goes far beyond. Anybody got any other suggestions? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 16:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agee. Saying that his critics call him a crank does convey the general tone of those who oppose him, I suppose. I don't think "wildly" was so bad, given that it was celarly a view attributed to his net critics. I can think of other adjectives, but none are any more neutral than "wildly" except maybe "very". The fact is that thsoe who object to Sarfatti's views do not have a neutral attitude about him, and we should not pretend that they do, but we should be careful to attribute these views properly, to his critics. DES (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's give this guy a fair shake. Does anyone know what Martin Gardner has said about him? Uncle Ed 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gardner regards him as a crank and a dupe. Or at least he so described him in the chapter from Science: Good, Bad and Bogus, where he clearly regarded Sarfatti as part of the Bogus section. He also mentions in that chapter that Sarfatti's agent for selling Space-time and Beyond to Dutton was Ira Einhorn; that Sarfatti later tried to get his name taken off a re-issue of this book; that Sarfatti  assumed (or at least said) that his physics background made him fully qualified to asses the merits of Uri Geller's claims (which he initally considered valid, but later dismissed); that he was at one point backed by and claimed to be a "warm personal friend of" Warner Erhard and supported the claims of EST, but latter was at ods with Erhard and EST.  I think that Gardner wrote about Sarfatti in a later work as well, in the same negative vein, but I am not sure of that. I have S:GB&B at hand, and can provide quotes from it if anyone wants them. DES (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: On page 95 of the Avon Discus pb editon of Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus, Gardner wrote: "Was it a 'repeatable' experiment as Sarfetti's release states? Perhaps repeatable in front of PhD paraphysicsts, but not in front of knowledgable magicians.  (footnote 3 cites Houdini and Confessions of a Psychic) Indeed Geller's methods are both old-fashioned and well-known. The intersted reader can learn most of them by reading the references cited in notes 2 and 3." This passage refers to the passage, on page 94, where Garner quotes Sarfetti as stating "My personal professional judgement as a PhD physicist, is that Geller demonstrated genuine psychoenergetic ability at Birkbeck, which is beyond the doubt of any reasonable man, under relatively well-controled and repeatable experimental condtions." ( footnoted to Science News vol 106, July 20 1974 page 46.) I belive that these two passages, taken togehter along with the rest of the chapter, justify summerizing Gardner's view of Sarfetti as being a "dupe" even though he did not use that exact term. DES (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: On page 102 of the same volume, Gardner writes: "There are two traits that characterize the true Gellerite. He is a person of enourmous gullibility, the gullibility strenghened by an enourmous  will to belive. And he is person incapable of recognizing the absurd. (If he is a physicist, i would add a third trait: The egotisim of beliving that he is competant to detect fraud.)" While Gardner did not explictly label Sarfetti a "true Gellerite", I think the implication is fairly clear from the chapter as a whole that he so regarded Sarfetti. DES (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: On page 111 of the same volume (Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus) Gardern writes of Sarfetti "In recent years Sarfetti has been promoting an invention, for which he has pendign patents, desigend to transmit coded information faster than light. I know of no other physicist who thinks it will work." I think the tone and content of this passage are fairly summed up by the word "crank". DES (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Note that none of the above establishes that Sarfetti was wrong about anything, at best it establishes that Gardner thought Sarfetti was wrong, was a crank and a dupe of Geller. But all i did above was to quote Gardner's published work, and to summerize it, I think quite fairly. I am not a "blatant liar" for correctly quoting and fairly summerizing Gardner's  views, while accurately attributing them to a specific publiashed source. If Gardner changes his veiws later, or published other views of Sarfetti in conrast to those here quoted i am not aware of them. If Sarfetti was in fact on a mission from the CIA (why publicly supporting Geller would have aided such a mission I fail to see, but that is beside the point), Gardner was either unaware of this, or chose not to mention it. His published views of Sarfetti do not reflect it. I was asked "Does anyone know what Martin Gardner has said about him?". I responded, I belive fairly and accuratly, with a summery of Gardner's published views. if these views were inaccurate, that does not change the fact that Gardner expressed them. I now ask for an apology for having been called a "blatant liar" by Sarfetti.  Sarfetti asks what the other matter I mentioned proved? Was i trying to indicate guilt by assocation? It is true that havign been associated with Einhorn and Erhard proves nothing about the validity of Sarfetti's views. But the fact that Gardner chose to report these facts in print does say something about Gardner's view of Sarfetti. Perhaps Gardner was tryign to use guilt by assocation. But if so that only confirms his nagative view of Sarfetti, although it may also reduce the worth of his view in soem minds. In any case these facts were citesd in the same article I was using as my source, so I repeated them to give the flavor of that source more accurately. DES (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildly incorrect? 

message: 1) Martin Gardner and the whole CISCOPS crew at Scientific American were a Lefty Cabal, all members of the American Communist Party in their youth as was Phillip Morrison one of my professors at Cornell - as was Oppenheimer's wife at least. See The Venona File released by the KGB to the CIA's Herbert Romerstein for the general description of the deep penetration of the KGB into the American Left that I was on the periphery of. This basic information was given to me by Neo Con Pit Bull, Stephen Schwartz, author of "The Two Faces of Islam" who converted to Shia Islam. Schwartz and I have had a bitter split over Michael Savage of The Savage Nation, but that is another story. The same is true of almost the entire Old Guard of CSICOPS. Their basic attacks on paranormal research was politically motivated. I have a CIA memorandum from early 60's from Richard Helms calling for the Clandestine Services (AKA CI) to study the paranormal because the Soviets were using it. Martin Gardner & CSICOPS were helping the KGB in debunking the investigation of the paranormal by the CIA. It is a well known fact that the SRI operation, that I collided with in 1973 - and I have a tape to prove it - was a CIA undercover operation. Indeed the Spook in charge was the late Harold Chipman who I worked with in the 1980's and my book "Destiny Matrix" has the documentation to prove it. Martin Gardner was a science writer without any advanced degrees. His debunking was basically politically motivated.
2) Ira Einhorn WAS my book agent in 1974. SO WHAT CRIME AM I GUILTY OF BECAUSE OF THAT? DESiegel SPINS that into some kind of CRIME that PROVES I am a "kook" or a "crank" - he stops at calling me a "Kike" or a "Subhuman", but his intent is clear.
The words "crank", "crackpot", "kook" are used by the mean spirited people we see here exactly like the words "Kike" & "Nigger" etc have been used. They are used to ABUSE, DEFAME, DEBASE and HUMILIATE and only a SOCIOPATH will not understand that. Are you all sociopaths? What's the matter with you people? Have you no sense of shame, of decency? If Wikipedia is to be a useful instrument of culture then it should forbid the use of all such emotional words that are simply weapons designed to cause pain. No references to the goofy Crank.Dot.Net or Alt.Kooks. should be used as credible sources.
3) I never dismissed Uri Geller's authenticity. James Randi met with me privately at the time ~ 1974 or so and twisted my arm because he was buddy buddy with Phillip Morrison one of my physics teachers and basically they threatened my prospects for future employment in academia. I have been recently with Uri Geller in London on two occasions and I think he has real ability. This is not the place to go into that. it will be in my book "Qabal."
4) It is a fact that I spent a lot of personal time with Werner Erhard, he gave me thousands of dollars. There are many living witnesses to this such as Fred Alan Wolf, the star of the film "What The Bleep Do I Know?" and Saul-Paul Sirag and others like Jagdish Mann. More details are in my book "Destiny Matrix". The politics of what split me up with Werner Erhard are labrynthine and will be in my book "Qabal". They involve the death of John Belushi from cocaine, the release of Tim Leary to us at Esalen in 1976 and other covert intelligence undercover matters dealing with the KGB at Esalen. As I say the real truth here is Cloak and Dagger Looking Glass War and one day will no doubt be a gripping TV series. Some of the basic story is already published in Destiny Matrix. In any case DESiegel's analysis above is INCOMPETENT, SLOPPY, and any real scholar can see through it. It's SHLOCK! My God, he cannot even spell Werner Erhard's name correctly.
Remember I had an Ivy League education at Cornell when it meant more than it does now. I have a Masters and PhD from the University of California. I have been exposed up close and personal to some of the greatest intellects of the 20th Century. I have been a professor at San Diego State University - and you dare call me "crank", "kook" and "crackpot" for having an open mind on the weird stuff, the Twilight Zone of the paranormal and the alien? I fear for the future of America that is quickly devolving into The Stupid Society - indeed the whole world like that Wikian from Singapore. Except for Uncle Ed, so far most of you FLUNK THE COURSE, you have not raised your own bars high enough. Your world is flat - like a punctured tire! I cast pearls before swine because not one of you can really comment intelligently on even one of the physics gems in my equations in the archive. CH is allegedly too medicated to make a real refutation - or so my agents have informed me.
User:Jack Sarfatti (talk) 5:23 PM, 12 October 2005 (PCT)  the previous signature had been piped to "DES" which could have implied that the above were my words, which is not the case. DES (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSI WARS! 

message: For whatever reason, I received the following legal threat via email today:
Date: Oct 12, 2005 12:54 AM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
From: JackSarfatti (sarfatti@pacbell.net)
 
I have filed the following complaint with the appropriate legal authorities:
The Wikimedia Foundation is registered as a non-profit corporation in the State of Florida. 
 
The Board of Trustees of this Foundation have allowed vicious lies, smears, slander and libel about me to appear on their website and they have repeatedly prevented me from defending myself.
Please note I am involved in USG National Security work and what these people are doing is detrimental to US National Security. The Wikimedia Foundation, wittingly or unwittingly I do not know, is aiding the terrorist cause.
Sincerely
Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. physicist
San Francisco, CA
Did anyone else receive a copy of this?  Hall Monitor 22:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it hurts our security to call a kook a kook, or a crank a crank, then we are in deep trouble. DES (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that no PhD physicist ever held such unjustified views as to be fairly describd as a "kook"? If so, i disagree wth you. Do you deny that characterizing someone as a "kook" or a "crank" is to make an allegation about the soudness of his views, that is, to make a judgement, not unlike your refering to me as "clueless" and a "hack programmer with no credentials". I did not characterize your personality, your ethics, nor did I level any ethnic slur at you. In fact i didn't even call you a kook, I said that others have verifiably done so, and that we should report that fact. I will expand on my statment above -- If even calling someone a kook falsely is "aiding the terrorist cause"; if our national security depends in a significant way on not "insulting" people doing non-public work for the U.S. Government, then the U.S. is in a very sorry state indeed. DES (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I talked on the phone was him subsequent to his sending that. If he makes no more such threats, I consider the matter closed. Uncle Ed 00:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, and Ed Poor does not have the authority to make a final determination on behalf of the foundation, the wikipedia community, or individual contributors other than himself. His view carries weight, but it is by no means final. There is a clear policy against making legal threats on wikipedia or against wikipeda or its editors while also continuing to post here, and the above quoted messge violates that policy. Has Sarfetti said that he has withdrawn, or in fact never filed, the suit threatened above? DES (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: October 2005 legal threat

message: HELP! MAY DAY! MAY DAY! Where is Uncle Ed now that we need him?
Someone has repeatedly REMOVED the following from this page in VIOLATION OF WIKI RULES. That person should be BLOCKED!
This is what has been VANDALIZED more than once in several versions
The above leaves out very important facts that were deleted when I put them in. It is seriously incomplete and again gives a totally skewed picture of who I am, what I think and my role in the world.
:Please provide the full citations that  GyroGearLoose only provided incomplete references to. Likewise, the refs above are less than complete because they were copied from the SF Comical article; please fix. GangofOne 21:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Outrageous Vandalism of Jack's writing! 

message: My God! Most of the Pharisees here, The Pundits here, my self-appointed Inquisitors here are simply blinded by my Light, my ALIEN BRILLIANCE, My Genius, My Daemon, My Demiurge. See Plato's Allegory of The Cave. I have been out of The Cave a long time and you are all Cave Men. I am like Charleton Heston in Planet of the Apes! I am Prospero to your Caliban!
[User:Jack Sarfatti|JackSarfatti]] 8:21PM, 12 October 2005 (PCT)
:Above, you say: "3) I never dismissed Uri Geller's authenticity." Now you say "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PARANORMAL." Please reconcile. GangofOne 03:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikado. You believe that the most probable explanation is that Geller can bend metal with his mind. GangofOne 09:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Cave in Planet of the Apes

message: Cut from intro:
:Critics often characterise his work as being wildly incorrect and describe him as a "crank". These views, and the reputation derived from his advocacy of them, are   major reasons why Sarfatti is notable. 
Please provide references for the above. All I could find was a blogger named David Hertz:
:Sarfatti is universally reviled in the physics community. Sarfatti is a loud and obnoxious crank and he gets his panties yanked up over his ears (atomic wedgie!) on a regular basis when he posts to sci.physics. Sarfatti isn't a heterodox scientist posting controversial material. Sarfatti is a crank, spewing gibberish, and is probably mentally ill.  
If that's the best we can do, we'd better say that:
*Blogger David Hertz called Sarfatti "a crank".
But this harks back to notability. Is a random, uncredentialed blogger someone we want to be quoting for an encyclopedia article of enduring value? Uncle Ed 04:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarkss. Uncle Ed 13:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV: needs attribution 

message: Anthere wrote (on the mailing list):
:Please, avoid doing anything which could make us liable of anything, and as Jimbo recommanded just today "Let's please all review the page about him at Wikipedia to make sure that it does not contain "vicious lies, smears, slander and libel". Of course, we should do this with absolutely anyone... but here is a case when it is particularly important ;-)
I agree with the above. Uncle Ed 04:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Please Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks; I marked 2 phrases which aren't allowed here. (2) Your main point seems to be that All of those citations ... are from a relatively small number of people with no credentials. Uncle Ed 13:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Excuse me for breaking in, but I'm the one who posted Hertz's blog comment here on the talk page. Please understand that I did so, not to support Sarfatti critics, but to describe them. Wikipedia needs to describe David Hertz's standing in the science community. All we know about him (as of yesterday) is that he signed a blog entry which criticized Dr. Sarfatti. Uncle Ed 13:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo and Anthere on avoiding smears

message: On Oct 12, 2005, at 9:49 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
"Jack, I see that your wiki page has been revised. As of shortly
after midnight EDT Thursday 13 Oct 05, it said, in the lead paragraph:
'... critics often characterise his work as being wildly incorrect and describe him as a "crank".
... Some of his wide-ranging speculations include UFOs as extraterrestials, reality of some parapsychological phenomena,
speculations on faster-than-light communications, and most recently his design for space travel by warping the fabric of spacetime
to form wormholes between distant regions, loosely speaking. ...'
Is that OK with you ?""
NO IT IS NOT! These Yokels do not even know that wormholes and warp drives and time travel are discussed in serious physics journals! They think it's only me I guess. Also mention UFOs, paranormal and they stereotype you with a knee-jerk reaction. They seem to have no critical thinking skills at all! Rampant stupidity run amuck. The New Barbarians. Cyber Trash!
"Aside from such prejudicial phrases as "wildly incorrect", I wonder if it is worth the effort to correct the erroneous description of your current UFO propulsion model as
'.. to form wormholes between distant regions ...'
when it is mostly to warp spacetime in the region of the vehicle using dark energy / Josephson junction techniques."
Exactly! These WIKI "editor" guys are really CLUELESS INCOMPETENT Dilettantes! Tony you should go in and correct it for the record. I am working with Uncle Ed on this. He is some honcho at ABC News I think who has pull with Jimbo Wales. He is the brightest of the lot I have run into.
"On another point, and this is something that seems to me to be important, if wiki is going to quote unnamed "critics" saying that your
work is "wildly incorrect", then maybe they should quote me (credentials shouldn't matter, as UNNAMED critics have UNKNOWN credentials) as saying:
"The potential importance of Jack's model is that its dark energy may exceed nuclear energy as much as nuclear energy exceeds chemical energy. Therefore, if the USA fails to explore Jack's model, and if another nation, such as China, Iran, Russia, ... does explore
it and find it to be correct and exploit its full potential, then the USA will lose its position as leading superpower, and either be doomed to second-rate status (if the new superpower is relatively benign) or be destroyed like Carthage (if the new superpower views the USA as the Great Satan)."
But of course that's too positive since many of these shlemiels have already made up their minds.
and
"My work, although using an approach different from Jack's, leads to substantially the same results as Jack's, and such mutual confirmation may indicate correctness."
Tony if you go in and correct it and add it, I am pretty sure Uncle Ed will not let them remove it.
"I would like to see the wiki article state what I say immediately above, and to see it have a section in which you describe your model
as you have in recent e-mails.
Tony"
Go ahead and do it. See what happens. Thanks.
:If the above is a copy of a Usenet newsgroup post, maybe it should go on a subpage of this discussion page - or simply be referenced by a web link. Wikipedia talk pages are primarily for its contributors to discuss ways of improving an article. Uncle Ed 13:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Smith a real physicist, and a practising attorney mind you, says

message: I live in San Francisco's North Beach. I bet most of my critics here live in souless places, urban sprawl surrounded by fast food joints part of the lonely crowd. BTW books that mention me signficiantly include:
The Star Gate Conspiracy by Picknett & Prince
Bohemia by Herbert Gold
Cosmic Trigger by Robert Anton Wilson
The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav
Alien Intelligence by some Brit I forget his name
Time Warps by John Gribbon
and others I can't recall now.
Also you can here me sing in semi-professional shows when I was younger in music files on
http://qedcorp.com/APS/
http://qedcorp.com/London/
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
Listen to
http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html
and click on html files at
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/
JackSarfatti 11.37 PM, 12 October 2005 (PCT)
:Now you're getting thoroughly irrelevant.  Your place of residence (and that of your critics), and your singing ability, have nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of your theories in physics, or the validity of criticisms of you. *Dan T.* 11:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bohemians and Philistines

message: It is simply a fact that many critics of Sarfatti are very negative about his theories and speculations. It is also a fact that Usenet is not the usual venue for publishing even highly unconventional ideas in physics. Sarfatti has been considered negatively by many since his involvment with paraphysics dating back to ths 1970s, long before the existince of Usenet, for which I have proveided reputable sources (and can provide more). It is also a fact that were it not for his provocative statements and the largely negative reaction to them, Sarfatti would not be in any way notable.
Now, none of that means that his critics are correct. It is true that many well-known people are strogly attacked, and it is also true that many eventually widely acccepted scientific ideas are considered absurd and crankish early in their history.  (Continental drift comes to mind and there are many other examples.) It is possible (although I belive unlikely) that Sarfatti's ideas will be similarly respected in the future. (Of course that fact that many respected theories were once thought crankish does not alter the fact that most ideas thought crankish are always so regarded -- the crank thory that proves correct is a rare beast.)
But the fact is that his reputation as a "crank" or "crackpot" -- albiet one with real credentials as a physicist -- is what makes Sarfatti notable. IMO the lead paragraph MUST say this quite clearly, or we are distoring the facts in fear of a lawsuit -- fear which is quite certianly bogus. It is not actionable to say that people have called him a crank, when they have. It is not actionable to accurately report the general tone of the reaction to Sarfatti, on Usenet and elsewhere. There are those who regard Sarfatti's views quite favorably, and this should also be reported. But in the absence of the controversy surrounding him, Sarfatti would simply be another non-notable person with a PhD. Therefore that controversy must be the main topic of the lead. DES (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put, and I agree.  The controversy is the reason there's even an article.  Friday (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of Lead 

message: "Sarfatti has, on occasion, used such claimed government work in order to attempt to silence critics by claiming that any public criticism of Sarfatti is harmful to the national security because it could disrupt this work. He has also threatened to report critics, and owners of Web sites with articles about him not to his liking, to the FBI or other governmental agencies as aiders of terrorism."
The above should be removed. I never threatened to bring in FBI about a website. That is garbled. I mentioned that the FBI was investigating a number of anonymous  hate crime letters mailed to me and my friends from Springfield MO on Sept 17, 2005, which happened to coincide with the time when all this started. Also there is not enough positive information. My discovery of the Super Solid is major and the 3 quotes from Chapline, Susskind and Finkelstein. Who the hell do you think you are? Well, I will find out exactly who you are. Tit for tat. Again you defame me and I will take whatever legal measures against you personally if such defamation of me from you persists. Investigations of UFOs and paranormal is not sufficient to smear me with "crank" & "crackpot".  I consider what you are doing to be personal harrassment and comission of a hate crime and will seek a restraining order against you if you persist. It is you who distort the facts by citing irresponsible people who have called me those names. It is actionable slander (libel) to emphasize that and to suppress the positive facts about me. In any case I don't think Jimbo Wales and Uncle Ed will permit that. This is not a threat to Wiki but it is a serious warning to Siegel. As it stands now the article is unacceptable because it is skewed to the negative and not fairly balanced with positive facts about me like the quotes from Susskind, Finkelstein and Chapline.
[User:Jack Sarfatti|] 3:23 PM Oct 13, 2005 (PCT)
:Jack, please stop the legal threats. Other editors will take you much more seriously if you aren't threatening to take legal measures against them. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 22:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what he is suggesting is that you stop using the threat of legal action as leverage and engage in rational conversation instead of vitriol. If you want to take legal action, stop talking here and just go and take legal action. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The reference for the above is right on this very page:  *Dan T.* 23:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: False Allegation

message: The following should be removed completely because it is obviously vindictive as well as so garbled as to be not true by not making the relevant distinctions. Any mention of the Kook.Net et-al run by irresponsible nihilists, the Cyber Nazis, is not a credible source and DEMEANS Wiki. Would Britannica put that vicious trash in? Would the New York Times? And still main point is that the article is unjustly SKEWED to the NEGATIVE to SKEWER ME. I am a COMPLEX CHARACTER and that article as it stands CUTS MY LIMBS off! It aides and abets Islamofascism and yes, quote me. Whoever wrote such stuff also in a past life hammered the nails into Jesus on The Cross!
:I think the above, as well as your earlier comparisons of your critics to Joseph Stalin, falls into a similar category to the style of argument referred to by Godwin's Law.  So, why haven't you brought up Adolf Hitler yet? *Dan T.* 23:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he did say "Cyber Nazis". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the feeling that it's not going to stop anything though. --Apyule 05:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unacceptable for the article

message: I fear for Culture when Robots Rule The Roost
David provides the following disclaimer: The proposal to be
discussed represents his personal opinions. Although David is employed
by LEX2000 Inc., owner of APL2000 Inc., he is not a part of the APL+
language design team. His proposal does not represent official policy
of APL2000 Inc. He does not know when, or if, APL2000 will implement
namespaces, nor in what form they might be implemented, should that
occur.
For any official statements from APL2000 Inc., see their web
site at www.apl2000.com, send email to sales@apl2000.com, or write to
APL2000 Inc., Two Independence Way Suite 100, Princeton NJ 08540.
David E Siegel (AKA DES) may be reached by email at siegel@acm.org, or by mail at
the address above.
User:Jack Sarfatti (talk) 7:54 PM, 13 October 2005 (PCT)
:I have no clue what the heck any of the above means, other than that it has some connection with the APL programming language.  Just what its supposed relevance is to this article is unclear.  And your signature is broken; it seems to be missing a right bracket. *Dan T.* 03:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above was a disclaimer I appended to a published discussion of a proposal for a change in syntax in the APL programming language which i made some years ago. Because I was then emplyed by the company that owned the product, but was expressing my personal views as a user of the APL language (and as a person then active in ACM's Special Interest Group on APL) I felt that I had to make it clear that I was not expressing company policy. All this proves is that User:Jack Sarfatti is doign web searches for anything with my name on it. The above disclaimer is several years old, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. It is also out of date, because the company it refers to is no longer independantly owned, which can be easily verified in the public record. It does identify the mailing address at which I worked some years ago. Some might think this was an attempt to harras or stalk or intimidate me. If so it is an ineffective one -- the address in question is one I made public years ago, and knew that anyone could find with a google search. I have no idea what User:Jack Sarfatti intended by posting this here -- I can't see that it either advances his position or in any way discredits me -- except that it proves that i am a professional programmer, and that I wrote some rather stilted prose as a legal disclaimer atteched to a paper (the rest of which was IMO rather better written) on the subject of APL language design some years ago. DES (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alien Invasion!

message: ===the quotes in question===
"My God! Most of the Pharisees here, The Pundits here, my self-appointed Inquisitors here are simply blinded by my Light, my ALIEN BRILLIANCE, My Genius, My Daemon, My Demiurge. See Plato's Allegory of The Cave. I have been out of The Cave a long time and you are all Cave Men. I am like Charleton Heston in Planet of the Apes! I am Prospero to your Caliban!" - 12 October 2005  WAS 4.250 11:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably for the purpose of disruption. --Carnildo 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Quotes are rarely appropriate to articles at all; these ones are definitely not relevant. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 09:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If we chose a different set of quotes he'd come off as having an entirely different personality; which you chose is arbitrary and POV. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 11:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: "My God! Most of the Pharisees here, The Pundits here, my self-appointed Inquisitors here are simply blinded by my Light, my ALIEN BRILLIANCE, My Genius, My Daemon, My Demiurge. See Plato's Allegory of The Cave. I have been out of The Cave a long time and you are all Cave Men. I am like Charleton Heston in Planet of the Apes! I am Prospero to your Caliban!" - 12 October 2005  WAS 4.250 11:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the quotes in question

message: A section of quotes from the talk page?  Why?  Surely there are better quotes from other sources.  Friday (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably for the purpose of disruption. --Carnildo 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Quotes are rarely appropriate to articles at all; these ones are definitely not relevant. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 09:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If we chose a different set of quotes he'd come off as having an entirely different personality; which you chose is arbitrary and POV. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 11:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion about the quotes