Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 3

message: I spoke to Jack on the phone, and we've reached an understanding. I've unprotected his user:JackSarfatti account and reminded him that he'll have to follow our guidelines. He's authorized me to delete his "legal threat", for example.
When I unlock the page, I'm going to move the "disagree" and "crank" sentences from the intro. They belong further down. Uncle Ed 16:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are a large part of his notability, and such widely held views belong in the intro. They could be toned down a little, I'm not married to mentioning the crank award either. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 16:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: His reputation as a crank (one which extends far back beyond the creation of the internet, see the "paraphysics" section) is the primary reason that he is notable, and IMO must be mentioned in the intro in some form -- the exact wording is another matter. if changes to the intro form part of some sort of "deal" or "understanding" with Sarfatti, they are improper -- he has and should have no veto power over the content here.  DES (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Is the current intro ok with you though? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 16:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is after the edit I just made to it. DES (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator intervention 

message: User:UFO_Black_Ops has made the questionable claim that it is against the law (in what jurisdiction?) to publish somebody's birth date, as it facilitates "identity theft".  If that's the case, then I guess Wikipedia is breaking that law all over the place; to give a few examples, we have birthdates listed for Hilary Duff, Kelly Clarkson, George W. Bush, Pope Benedict XVI, and Bill Gates. *Dan T.* 00:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Birth dates are normally matters of public record, and I do not belive that it is illegal to post them. However, if Sarfatti says that he doesn't want this posted because he fears it might assist in someone trying to steal his identity, lets simply list his birth year. That is realy all that is of primary encyclopedic interst anyway -- it indicates how old he is, and how old he was when various events in his life occured, which may well be relevant to the reader. The month and day are not nearly as relevant for wikipedia's purposes, IMO. DES (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that his birth year has the most bearing on the other things in the article, there's a lot to be said for including full birth and death (where applicable) info in an encyclopaedia; given the fact that we do so on wikipedia too, I don't think we should be removing it because the subject wants it to be removed. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 02:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point, but identity theft is a real fear for many, and the exact birth date would perhaps help facilitate it. i am willing to make this minor concession as an act of good faith to Sarfetti -- with a person already dead this would not be an issue. Howver, the birth year is hivhly relevant, and at a minimumn it ought to remain, IMO -- we do this for all biography articles when the info is available. DES (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did we get the information from in the first place? I think we either should get rid of the information based on WP:V, or otherwise it's not a realistic fear as the information is out there anyway and anyone wanting to steal Sarfatti's identity would be able to find it just find whether it's in wikipedia or not. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 02:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where the person who posted it got the date from. The year, but not the exact date, is included in the Martin Gardner article i cited: "Magic and Paraphysics" where it is sourced to a biography published in Ken Kesey's magazine Spit in the Ocean in 1975. DES (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, a little googling found this at the SF chronicle. Pretty mainstream and reputable I think; so can we put back the date, seeing as it's out there anyway? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 03:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would... it's our normal style to include birthdates where known, as seen in many other biographical articles, and it's not a good precedent to cave in, in any way, to the paranoid delusions of a subject. *Dan T.* 04:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose people do have a right to conceal certain aspects of their demographics, but once it's out it's out, and in the case of a birthdate there is little he can do about it notwithstanding his paranoia.  Drdr1989 23:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia already has a policy in place at Wikipedia:No original research.  There is no reason for us to censor information from Wikipedia if a credible external source can be provided which verifies the birthdate of a figure notable enough to have an article here.  Hall Monitor 23:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It is certainly not illegal to post a person's birthdate. If it was, sites like zabasearch and birthdatabase wouldn't be around.--Fallout boy 21:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting of birthdate 

message: *cranknet.com Before wikipedia gets sued for mentioning Cranknet, it would make more legal sense to sue cranknet first.GangofOne 09:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to speak for myself. Although I'm flattered by the thought that you regard my words as carrying any weight around here, I'm really just one of hundreds of Admins. Uncle Ed 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cranknet

message: *IMO there is a considerable difference between self-publication and vanity press publication. It is true that a fair number of authors who have been published by major publishers are turning to self publication or small-press publication when a book is not accepted by a major publisher. And this is in part because when an author has multiple series (I am speaking here mostly of authors of fiction, because i know more about the situation there) and one series consistantly out-sells anotehr, a publisher not infrequently simply refuses to publish the less-well-selling series, even though it was makiong a profit because otherwise book distributors will base orders for works in the more popular series on the sales of works in the less-popular one. This leads some authors to go for self-publication. Other authors chose the self-publication route because of the greater control it gives them. it was in larg part for these reasons that Knuth created TeX, after all. True vanity press outfits OTOH, asre nothing but scams. They prey on would-be authors, and eitehr charge high "set-up" fees, or charge high prices for the finished books and encourage authors to buy their own books with the claim that the authors can then "re-sell" them on a retail level. The only people who make money on these are the printers/scam artists. But companies that offer self-publishing services to the public for reasonable fees,a dn don't pretend to more than they can do (for example lulu.dom) are another matter. Much of what they publish is stiull junk, because (like a wiki) anyone can publish and (unlike a wiki) there is effectively no reveiw. But far from all of it is junk. I don't think possesion of an ISBN proves much, because as mentioned above that meerly means a check was written. But when major libraries (who are quite leery of books from self-publishers or vanity presses, as a rule) but self-publisahed works on their shelves, that seems to me pretty good evidence that those works are on the same plane as works publsihed by major publishers (many of which are after all junk). DES (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but for the question at hand , whether the books should be listed in the article, the distinction is unimportant. The books should be listed. Not to list them would be faulty scholarship. (Side note, for a fictional depiction of vanity publisher, read Foucault's Pendulum) GangofOne 19:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, i was arguing in favor of listing them, on the grounds that they were at least arguably self-pubs, not vanity pubs, adn that the mere fact that they were not from "mainstream" publishers was not a good reason for ommitting them. We seem to be in violaent agreement. By coincidince, it was the "Atlanta nights" vanity publishing affair that broungt me to wikipedia, and my very first edit was to Vanity publisher. DES (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanity publication vs self-publication

message: BRAVO! BRAVO! for "GangofOne". I second that as a general rule. So that makes it "GangofTwo"! ;-) Also I am a Conceptual Performance Artist as well as a Tunnel-Visioned One-Dimensional Completely-Boring "Victorian Station Master" Respectable Academic Physicist. So, yes, the comparison of my books to a musician distributing his own music is 100% on the mark. One person's "Kook" is another person's "Creative Artist". But when I talk physics, I use ONLY MAINSTREAM PHYSICS. There is a lot of confusion about that. I do NOT invent NUTTY PHYSICS to replace MAINSTREAM PHYSICS.  I use MAINSTREAM PHYSICS to investigate apparently NUTTY PHENOMENA. There is a big difference that amateurs without PhDs in the subject from good universities cannot easily perceive. Also mathematicians with PhDs are not the same as physicists with PhDs - the cultures are significantly different, whilst having common ground for sure. Read Richard Feynman on this. See what he says about "rigor mortis". I knew Feynman in the 60's.  Indeed being surrounded by Victorian Station Masters at San Diego State in the early 70's made both me and Fred Alan Wolf run screaming from that kind of living death even though it was relatively financially secure. Today it's even worse because even the intellectual jobs are being OUTSOURCED to China, to India and elsewhere. Read Tom Friedman's "The World is Flat". Also read carefully  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1813695,00.html What do you think about that article and how it impacts on the financial future of most  of you? - especially the younger people. Huh?
JackSarfatti 3:07PM, 18 October 2005 (PCT)
:::To be clear, i was arguing in favor of listing them, on the grounds that they were at least arguably self-pubs, not vanity pubs, adn that the mere fact that they were not from "mainstream" publishers was not a good reason for ommitting them. We seem to be in violaent agreement. By coincidince, it was the "Atlanta nights" vanity publishing affair that broungt me to wikipedia, and my very first edit was to Vanity publisher. DES (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gang Of Two!

message: The most important letter reproduced in my book "Destiny Matrix" is the one by Lawry Chickering of March 12, 1982 pp. 148-150 to Richard De Lauer Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering. This letter has been cited in a debunking way by CSICOPPERS like Jeremy Bernstein in The New Yorker, by N.D. Mermin in Physics Today and others. However, a close reading of the text of that letter shows that it anticipates the current use of quantum entanglement as an information resource for SECURE UNTAPPABLE C^3 years before anyone else. I was the first again there. I am an Advanced Anomalous Signal for MASINT and that letter is a good example. Of course, in that letter I was also pushing for "signal nonlocality" that is not part of current quantum information theory, quantum teleportation, & quantum cryptography. However, the politics is more important here than the physics. Chickering was then Director of ICS - a post Donald Rumsfeld held later on! ICS was THE KEY NEOCONSERVATIVE THINK TANK for Reagan set up while he was still Governor. It was set up by Cap Weinberger and Ed Meese and I was their de-facto physical science advisor because of my personal relationship with Chickering. Chickering was a Yale grad, not sure if he is Skull & Bones, who worked for William F. Buckley, Jr on Firing Line when he got out of jail. [Freudian slip! I meant "Yale" not "Jail"! :-)]  I met Buckley personally twice under important circumstances. In any case, the details are in "Destiny Matrix" and I will not repeat them here. You will simply have to get the book to know why Reagan decided to go for SDI. Significantly Ed Teller (who I also knew) writes in his autobiography that he was surprised when Reagan made the decision - that he, Teller, was out of the loop! Indeed if you read Reagan's 1986 State of the Union Address, The Gipper alludes to me directly in his remark on physicists finding God in their equations and his quoting of "Back to the Future". Details in "Destiny Matrix. You will find corroboration of this story in the article "The Buttoned Down Bohemians" published in the San Francisco Chronicle Sunday Magazine in 1986. I lost my copy and if anyone gets one I would like a copy. My name is in that article with Rumsfeld's, Chickering et-al and my connection to SDI is made explicit. 
--Jack Sarfatti | Talk 03.32 PM, 18 October 2005 (PCT) 
Wikipedia does not cover most publications. What is and is not notable is a key issue. The number of Googgle hits is a quick rough and ready indicator, but no one criteria is decisive. Vanity publication and self-publication more often than other types DO NOT qualify as notable.  If Jack or someone else thinks we should note them, they should provide evidence they are NOTABLE. WAS 4.250 21:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My Role in Reagan's Decision to Launch SDI

message: Good to put the Margherita Sarfatti link in. Photographs of Margherita and her two sons bear an uncanny resemblance to me and my brother Michael. I looked like Amedeo and Michael looked like Roberto who was killed at Mussolini's side in the trenches in 1918 and became the "Horst Wessel" of the Italian Fascist Movement, i.e. Fallen Hero of the Fascist Youth Battalions. Margherita resembled some of my father's sisters. Although Margherita was a "Grassini" who married Cesare Sarfatti, they were also blood cousins. There were not a lot of Jews in Italy and there was a lot of intermarriage. I think my late aunt Victoria Sarfatti (a history teacher) actually knew Margherita. At my Midwood High School graduation in 1956 Aunt Vicky said cryptically "One day you will learn the history of our family." It was all kept from me. How I found out is in my book "Destiny Matrix". Indeed, my mother deliberately dropped the final i in my birth certificate. My father Hyman Sarfatti had it restored only I think in 1974. It was not popular to be connected to Mussolini in NYC in 1939. BTW Margherita's other boyfriends included Albert Einstein (they were teenagers in Italy) and G. Marconi - a life-long relationship to Marconi's death. Details in "Il Duce's Other Woman."
Jack Sarfatti 11:23 PM, 17 October 2005 (PCT)
:Calton asked for my evidence of the Jack-Margherita connection. I have no evidence except Sarfatti's claims, but I believe him. It's in files on his website, qedcorp.com, I forget which file.GangofOne 09:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarfatti-Mussolini Connection

message: ::I didn't ask for evidence of the Jack-Margherita connection, but now that it's been brought up, I guess I will question it. Given that the evidence turns out to be 
:::1) Jack's claim 
:::2) that Jack thinks a photograph looks similiar to him, along with
:::3) Jack's name-dropping anecdote (quelle surprise) about a dinner party.
::it falls squarely under "questionable at best" and should be left out unless he provides some bonafide evidence. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you made this edit  and said "Evidence, please?" in the edit summary, I thought you were asking for evidence. GangofOne 02:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you made this edit... Since my user name isn't "Carnildo", I can only wonder how you came to that conclusion. Want to take another look at that diff? --Calton | Talk 08:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I was mistaken. GangofOne 08:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Dropping

message: Whoever vandalized the article and put in "Trivia" I have not checked who yet is doing exactly what Uncle Ed said not to do. It is mean-spirited not objective and is obviously unfair done with clearly spiteful tone and intent. I think most of you will agree. :-0
[Jack Sarfatti]
:No, I don't see anything mean-spirited about it; it's apparently somebody's attempt to work in a mention of your alleged relative while making it clear that the relationship is not actually documented in any verifiable way. *Dan T.* 23:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nasty Vicious Spiteful Insulting "Trivia"

message: :Be that as it may, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot before responding. Uncle Ed 04:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Staying Cool

message: You all forgot entirely the extra-dimensions of my art work. You have reduced me too much. Your image is OK, but it is only a fragment of my "poisonality" (Brooklynese).
An orginal play I wrote for Pacifica Radio in 1979 is at
http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html
Also the FLASH cartoons at http://stardrive.org/cartoon/   .html files
e.g. http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html
and various music files from 1964 Cornell & Oberlin on 
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
http://qedcorp.com/London/
http://qedcorp.com/APS/
[Jack Sarfatti AKA "Jack, The Man" "Smiling Jack", Cool Hand Jack" "Jumping Jack Flash" and "Jack & The Beanstalk"
on Oct 19,2005 12:52 PM San Francisco Time]   
I put it in under trivia as it is hardly worth mentioning since it is undocumented. PLEASE delete it. PLEASE! I'd delete it myself, but I want to give you the satisfaction of utterly eradicating "a slap in the face to my family tradition". Enjoy yourself and strike those keys like you are hitting me. Let it all out. You'll feel better. Cheers. WAS 4.250 05:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jack as Conceptual Performance Artist

message: I was doing some grammar/style cleanup on this article, but I ran into some sections that left insufficient context for me to understand.
He taught at San Diego State and studied as a research fellow under David Bohm at the University of London and with Abdus Salam at ICTP, Trieste, Italy, from 1973 to 1974, before venturing into non-academic pursuits, e.g., at Esalen Institute in Big Sur and 1999-2000 Joe Firmage's ISSO exotic propulsion group in San Francisco with a budget of several million dollars.
What's going on in this sentence? What's ICTP? Was he in both London and Italy in 1973 and 1974? What's with the sudden jump from 1974 to 1999?
This story is told in detail by Picknett and Prince in their book The Star Gate Conspiracy.
Who are Picknett and Prince?
[Sarfatti note fyi http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/stargate-con.html 1:29 PM Oct 19, 2005, San Francisco]
Afterward, at Birkbeck College, Sarfatti reported that Geller demonstrated genuine "psychoenergetic" ability beyond the doubt of any reasonable man, under relatively well-controlled and repeatable experimental conditions.
Would it be possible to replace this with a verbatim quote from the cited issue of Science News? I don't want to restructure this for fear of obscuring Mr. Sarfatti's meaning.
Sarfatti subsequently retracted his support for this particular design, saying that he realized it would not work because it assumed orthodox quantum theory that has the "no-cloning" theorem.
I added "his support"; it's not grammatically possible to retract a design. I'm not entirely happy with this wording, though.
I'd rather not get involved over the am-too am-not disputes on this page, but it needed a dose of general MOS cleanup. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I'll see if I can't work that in as a quote. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar cleanup 

message: :Would "denounced the design" be too harsh? I just don't think that "retracted" works here, and I don't see any reason to use Mr. Sarfatti's exact wording save when quoting him directly. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the first sentence quoted by A Man In Black. I'm fairly, but not completely, sure that I interpreted it correctly. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, "Rretract" is the standard word for a scientist to indicate that a theory, poroposal, or idea that he (or she) formerly advanced is no longer supported by that scientist. In using that word, Dr. Sarfatti aligned himself with that model. We should use that word, whatever adjustmets we need to make to make the use of it grammatical. DES (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, it is also the standard word by which a newspaper, magazine, or scholarly author indicates that former statemetns are now considered to be in error. "Denouncing" ideas somehow has the feel of a Struggle session, which i am sure we do not want. DES (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Withdraw! I'll be changing this right now to "withdrew the design" as that doesn't sound as weird grammatically. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Denounce"? No.  Not appropriate

message: You completely misunderstand what pseudo-science is. BTW I do not do paraphysics. I consult for people in USG Intelligence Community interested in those topics. You are using words very sloppily and are really out of your depth here not making relevant distinctions. People who e.g. say relativity is a conspiracy etc and have really nonsense replacements - that's pseudo-science. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE and it simply shows the superficiality of your understanding of the relevant issues to any depth to make those false allegations. You illustrate how "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." BTW James Randi is not God. He is not a scientist. He has no degrees in Physics. He is a stage magician. 
Jack Sarfatti JackSarfatti 06:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I am not a pseudo-sciientist

message: On the 1953 phone call(s) I have a witness. See my book "Destiny Matrix" - also other people got them including Kit Green a high ranking CIA officer at the time. See http://www.greylodge.org/occultreview/glor_005/drgreen.htm
To dismiss all this superficially as "kooky" etc is bad Wiki quality control, lack of due diligence, sloppy research etc. There are many highly-qualified scientists like Nobel Prize Physicist Brian Josephson, FRS, Professor at Cambridge into this same stuff with me. To call Josephson crazy or kooky because of that is a cheap way out. It's not true. The problem here is that there is big cognitive dissonance. You guys are like primitive tribes meeting modern technology for first time. The easy way out is to dismiss us as simply crazy because we also happen to have fun and play with the ideas. Wake up and smell the coffee, because the survival of the planet depends on us. I mean me and my "Kooky" friends in the Invisible College.  Oil is peaking. This is the Long Emergency. Most of you will have problems surviving in the next 10 years or even less. The lights are going out  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1813695,00.html
[Jack Sarfatti, 2:20 PM Oct 19, 2005 San Francisco]
:And how do you know that those calls weren't the work of some childish prankster, who managed to figure out how to speak in a quasi-robotic voice and then started calling people pretending to be an alien? *Dan T.* 21:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kooky? NO! High Strangeness? YES! USG INTELLIGENCE interest in? YES!

message: At least something like "Books by Sarfatti are available at http://amazon.com"
:wwe do not generally link to amazon or other commercial book sellers, but if the ISBN is given for each book (and IMO it should be) that will enable anyone intersted to purchase them from amazon or any other site which carries them. DES (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The article OK now except for total lack of mention of my 3 books

message: Jack says of himself: "I do NOT invent NUTTY PHYSICS to replace MAINSTREAM PHYSICS. I use MAINSTREAM PHYSICS to investigate apparently NUTTY PHENOMENA." This is the best and fairest summary of the "How do we characterize his nonmainsteam physics?" that I've seen. And psuedoscience or psuedophysics is inaccurate so long as he claims no more validity than the string theorists do. Protoscience is what string theory is - as well as any other physics theory without adequate evidence but in line otherwise with the equations of physics. WAS 4.250 00:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, as far as that goes. Personally, I think that :Category:Pseudoscience should include notable critics of and commentators on pseudoscience, but this isn't the place to debate that. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comment on "Gang of Two talk section"

message: In "Criticism" who of any standing in the scholarly or scientific community has made a public statement that they view my statements about my contacts and my national security work with "scorn"? Granted that envious wannabees on the WEB in usenet et-al have done so. But is that worthy of mention? And, if it is, why are not the positive remarks of physicists like George Chapline & David Finkelstein and also Gary Ford not also worthy of mention to give a fair objective presentation of the actual reality?
[Jack Sarfatti, Oct 20, 2005, 6:37 PM San Francisco]
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." Einstein
Jack SarfattiJackSarfatti 06:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Spirits Scorned

message: Hey, why not divide this section into subsections? It seems like there should be separate sections for his papers, published books, and self-published books. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sound like it should be reasonable...does anyone know enough about the publications?  For now I've marked his two self-published works as such in the list to calm down a revert war.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a split between papers and books would be good, but I really don't know (or particularly care) about a split within books. --Apyule 11:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published works 

message: Is everything okay here? No more nasty personal remarks or legal threats?
Any problems let me know, but it looks like the 'recent unpleasantness' has abated. Uncle Ed 00:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator check

message: Please stop. I am not a crank and that is slander and defamation. I consult on national security issues and defamation of me by my political enemies may actually be a violation of the Patriot Act and other Federal Laws. I ask people like DTobias and others to stop their insulting slurs insults and defamations. That some idiots who run Crank.dot defame me and many others is not NEWSWORTHY. I am sure DTobias has enemies who would say bad false things about him - should they be made public? Also since I am a target for Islamo-fascists and The Enemy Within ID Theft is an issue and it is a violation of my privacy rights to publish my exact birthdate as it would be to publish my social security number and credit card numbers. There is no legitimate reason to do so.
:Sarfatti's birthdate has been widely publicized, as can be easily seen with a quick Google search . See  Birthdates are typical biographical info. We certainly would not publish his SSN. -Willmcw 07:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siegenthaler Test Case D Tobias & Others Continue Their Slurs and Insults Vandalization of my page 

message: You are invading my privacy Willmcw and I consider you a personal political enemy. Because of my national security work I am a target for ID theft and if such theft happens because of your malicious personal actions using Wiki then you may be in violation of Federal law like the Patriot Act. I am speaking to you as an individual independent of Wiki. I am not an ordinary person. I am a target and you are personally endangering my safety. Please desist or I will have to make a complaint to the FBI about you personally. Thank you. You saw the New York Times article on the Siegenthaller Case. Irresponsible actions by people like you endanger the Wiki experiment. Not ALL THE NEWS IS FIT TO PRINT. You use Wiki as a personal instrument for slander and defamation. Crank.Dot.Net is not a responsible source of factual information. What I say applies to all other "Liberals with mental disorders" of the "Enemy Within" who attack me with false vague smears not for scientific reasons but for political reasons.
:You are once again in violation of WP:NLT. *Dan T.* 18:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want your birthdate publicized you should start by removing it from your own websites. If you make legal threats you'll have to stop editing Wikipedia until they can be resolved. -Willmcw 20:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Violations of Federal Law

message: Hello I am  a newby to Wiki and a friend of Jack Sarfatti's. He completely denies making any legal threats in any incident WIllmcw mentions. Sarfatti says "This is a completely trumped up allegation by my leftist political enemies to silence me on Wiki. In fact it is outrageous. I have no intention of wasting my time and energy in instituting legal proceedings against Wikipedia."  
Sarfatti's USG Intelligence connections are mentioned on pp. 204-5 of "Hunt for Skinwalker" by Colm Kelleher and George Knapp. Knapp a TV anchorman on Channel 8 Las Vegas will confirm. Former CIA officer Dr. Christopher Green will confirm a recent high level meeting discussing Sarfatti's work. See also p. 237.  Green wrote in a public message on an open list:
On Jan 1, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Green, Christopher wrote:
"For what it is worth; (I am not a physicist)...Hal's work (his recent 6 already peer-reviewed physics publications from the past two years only) were tabled at a recent meeting I attended. There was a long, detailed, and exceptionally positive discussion at a recent (a month ago) National Academy of Sciences DIA/CIA sponsored Intelligence Technology Futures Commission. I am a member, with a four year appointment, as are the other Commissioners. It was not part of the formal agenda, which had included physicists from CIA and DIA making classified presentations to the 18 of us (10 are physicists) first. The positive discussion was started by several persons who wanted to "set the record straight about where the real world-class experimental physics was being designed...like at the Puthoff Institute in Texas."  I didn't understand almost a thing about the discussion scientifically, but it was very positive. I did ask what the team thought about the work of Dr. Sarfatti.
 
k."
To find out who Kit Green is, Google "Goblins Langley"
Nuff said, over and out. —the preceding unsigned comment is by RMC3 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 2 January 2006   (UTC-5)
:I moved the above section to the bottom where new additions should go, instead of buried in the middle.  Sarfatti and his friends tend to produce very hard-to-follow commentary in this site, due to their failure to follow proper ordering; failure to add signatures to the end of their contributions to make it clear who said what; inclusion of random and often badly-formatted copy-and-paste from e-mail, forums, and Web sites; and a rambling, incoherent style.  But as for the supposed lack of legal threats, how about "Please desist or I will have to make a complaint to the FBI about you personally.", which appears from Sarfatti in the discussion above. *Dan T.* 16:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarfatti denies making any legal threats

message: *Sarfatti has of late called attention to himself by his Internet writings and Usenet postings explaining his theories.
*Sarfatti has, on occasion, referred to his claims of doing sensitive government work in order to attempt to silence critics. Typically, he claims that any public criticism of himself or his work can disrupt this work and hence is harmful to the national security. He has also threatened to report critics (including owners of Web sites with articles about him not to his liking) to various governmental agencies (local, state, and federal), often for "harassment" but occasionally for "aiding the terrorist cause." He has been known to contact employers of his critics to decry their behavior. He claims that he has only responded in this way to "personal attacks," and asserts that he welcomes "responsible" criticism.
The above material appears to be original research. If we go out and read over Usernet postings and characterize them then we are drawing our own conclusions. If a notable critic of the subject has made that characterization then we can use it. But we should not be the critics ourselves. -Will Beback 23:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the person writing the comment was the moderator of the physics USENET group, and well-known internet columnist, surely he's notable enough that we can quote him.  Will this satisfy Beback? -lethe talk 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's documented on USENET, then surely it's verifiable, will this satisfy DESiege?  Here's one, there are lots though  -lethe talk 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be proper to add to the article that the subject posted a message which said "XYZ". It is improper for us to say that "he often posts messages like XYZ". The latter conclusion is original research. Indeed, it may be original research of another kind to assert that the article survived Afd for any particular reason. We should remove what is unverifiable according to our standards. -Will Beback 02:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  I've changed the article so that it refers to specific incidents instead of general behavior. -lethe talk 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: He's written similar things right here on the Wikipedia talk pages, however.  The Usenet cites just show that he's been doing it for quite a while. *Dan T.* 15:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Aside from one sentence, which I left, I've removed this material because it is unsourced. -Will Beback 19:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the article adheres strictly to the verifiability requirement, the criticism section is very badly written, and the whole article leans too far toward a pro-Sarfatti stance, in violation of NPOV, since the mainstream scientific community considers this guy a crackpot.  I gather that Sarfatti must have personally contacted Jimbo, hence his involvement.  I guess references could be found for all of the claims, but I'm not willing to do any more work preserving this article.  If the result of Sarfatti's personal involvement in wikipedia is that this article become a paean to Sarfatti, then so be it. -lethe talk 09:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have scientists on record saying he's a crackpot then we can include that. Saying that he's a Usenet kook is a separate matter, which we already do. Reading over the article I don't think anyone would call it excessively postive. -Will Beback 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very important that every single claim in this article be sourced to a legitimate mainstream source -- not Usenet postings.  Usenet postings could be and very often were forged and should not be considered reliable in any case where their legitimacy is at all in question (and in this case, this is true to the highest degree).  There is no reason for the article to become a "paean to Sarfatti" but neither should be based on unsourced opinion and speculation.  Stick to published sources and we'll be much stronger for it.--Jimbo Wales 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand. If mainstream scientists don't publish their opinions about crackpots, then how do we know that "the mainstream scientific community considers this guy a crackpot"? -Will Beback 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that verifiability is more important than NPOV.  I think that verifiability is a nonseparate component and precondition for NPOV.  If we take wild rumors and likely faked Usenet posts as evidence, we are hardly being neutral.   And presenting that Jack's theories are not accepted by mainstream scientists does not require us to throw around highly loaded terms like 'crackpot'.  My concern here is that if we're repeating rumors from ages ago, rumors which are denied, as if they are fact, we are not adhering to NPOV at all.--Jimbo Wales 16:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: I have email from both Jack Sarfatti and Lubos Motl of Harvard denying the validity of the claims regarding 'contacting employers'.  I can only repeat: relying in any way shape or form on old Usenet postings is a huge mistake.  It is not NPOV.  It is not verifiable.  It is original research.--Jimbo Wales 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, maybe the contacting of employers is unverified, but certainly he's threatened to sic the FBI on his critics, and made preposterous claims that criticism of him is treasonous and terroristic, and a violation of the USA PATRIOT act; you can find these claims right here on this page. *Dan T.* 16:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...he's threatened to sic the FBI on his critics..." --- well, show me ::a source is my response to this.  People's interactions with Wikipedia ::itself are not something we can report on without engaging in original ::research, I think, particularly if these things are controversial.--Jimbo Wales 05:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it really encyclopedic to include that information? Bad behavior in forums isn't really notable, is it? -Will Beback 18:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of harrasment to protect a person from criticism of his views says somethign signifacnt about both the person and his securtity in his views, IMO. If it is established by verifiable sources that Sarfatti contacted the employers of his critics in ways designed to adversely affect their employment, that would suggest that he does not feel that open debate on the mertits of his views will suffice. It is established that Sarfatti has said that people criticizing him are committing illegal acts by hindering work on US government projects, because he said that on Wikipedia, and at least implied an intention to report such people to US Federal law-enforcemet authorities. If it were establishged that he actually filed such reports that might well be though significant relative to his general credibility and his ability to respond to critics on the merits. DES (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: this edit is an example. DES (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, whatever.  None of this particularly concerns us, frankly.  This is an encyclopedia article. --Jimbo Wales 05:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What Jimbo said.  We should be judging what is in the article on the basis of factual accuracy, proper sourcing, NPOV, etc., rather than speculating as to the motives of those who wrote it. *Dan T.* 06:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Saying that people here have "mental disorders" (are you a psychiatrist who is qualified to make diagnoses?), making unsupported assertions as to their position on the political spectrum, and declaring them "not competent" to discuss something, might be construed as personal attacks. *Dan T.* 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contacting employers claim 

message: Is the comparison not obvious? Kangeroo Court. Not that I think Saddam is a nice guy of course. Obviously due process is impossible in both cases. BTW the beautiful idea of my http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 is that Einstein's gravity emerges from the vacuum coherent inflation field in the same way that the superfluid velocity emerges from the coherent ground state. Now of course to tunnel-visioned hack minds this sounds crazy. It is crazy, but is it crazy enough to be true? The pop book to read about this way of thinking is Robert B.Laughlin's "A Different Universe." Laughlin has a Nobel Prize and is at Stanford.
:Jack Sarfatti has been banned by Jimmy Wales from editing in Wikipedia. If you are Sarfatti then please do not continue to participate in violation of our policies. If you are an impostor then please go away. In either case you are not welcome. -Will Beback 05:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I feel like Saddam Hussein on Trial

message: Begin forwarded message:
From: Tony Smith <f75m17h@mindspring.com>
Date: March 2, 2006 10:15:23 PM PST
To: walrod@mpc.com.br
Cc: czarlosromanov@yahoo.com, sarfatti@pacbell.net, woit@math.columbia.edu, f75m17h@mindspring.com
Subject: Waldyr's reply
Waldyr, thanks for your reply a copy of the text of which is set
out below my signature. There was a large attachment called
THEREVIEW.doc that I was not able to read because it crashed
the mac translator that I use for .doc windows documents, so
I have not included it and I do not know what it said.
From context, I guess that it was a sample of math reviews
using "very hard words".
I still stand by my previous message
but here are a few additional comments based on your reply:
Pertti Lounesto did in fact point out errors and ambiguities
in many math works, such as for example the book Spin Geometry
by Lawson and Michelsohn, but he did not use such severely personally
abusive terms as "self-delusion", etc.
You are also correct that "very hard words" have been used in
criticism of math papers in Math. Rev. and Zentr. fur Math.,
but I consider such "very hard words" to be a very bad characteristic
of the math community, and one that is harmful to progress.
(For example, consider the difficulty faced by de Branges in
getting recognition of his proof of the Bieberback conjecture.)
However,
Jack is NOT writing MATH papers. He is writing PHYSICS papers,
and in PHYSICS it is the PHYSICAL IDEAS that are important,
far more important than correctable math technical misstatements.
The only PHYSICS criticism that I understand in your criticism
of Jack's paper is that you say
"... that he deduced Einstein's equations from his theory ...
is self delusion or Jack is a great joker ...".
I have discussed that part of Jack's model extensively by e-mail,
and it seems to me that his path to Einstein's equations
is just as physically realistic as the well-known MacDowell-Mansouri
path to Einstein's equations.
Therefore, in my opinion, your PHYSICS criticism of Jack's paper
is invalid.
Of course, Jack's PHYSICS ideas go beyond the MacDowell-Mansouri
mechanism in interesting ways that may even allow exploitation
of the Dark Energy that constitutes almost 3/4 of the stuff of
our universe.
Your statement that Dark Energy / Dark Matter "... is simply an
hypothesis, and I [Waldyr] am sure it is a very bad one ..." is
only an expression of your personal opinion, and therefore
is NOT a refutation of Jack's ideas.
It would be a great loss to human culture if math nit-picking
"very hard words" impeded the development of physics technologies
to control Dark Energy.
Finally, you say "... the 'dozen' ... are important men that
... will not loose the opportunity to ... eventually cause some
damage to some of my [Waldyr's] students.
This is not a very beautiful 'game', of course,
but it is a game which is being played since ever. I [Waldyr] am
quite sure that lawyers play games even ugly than this one. ...".
NO !!! I have practiced law (criminal and civil) for decades here in
the USA, and I can say that lawsuits are NOT "games ...[as]... ugly"
as the game that you and "the 'dozen' ... important men" are playing
against Jack.
In a lawsuit, you have a known adversary and you can ask direct
questions and the court can compel the adversary to answer the
questions.
Here,
Jack does not know who are "the 'dozen' ... important men" who
are acting against him,
and
you can (and do) refuse to answer the simple, direct questions:
Who are they and what have they said ?
So, please do NOT insult the lawyers of the USA
by saying that they are on the same low level as you
and the others who are attacking Jack.
If this disgusting episode has one silver lining, it is that
it makes clear that lawyers are not the lowest scum of the earth,
because
it is now clear to me that the math/physics community occupies that
exceptional place in human society.
Tony
=====================================================================
Status:  U
From: "Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr." <walrod@mpc.com.br>
To: "'Tony Smith'" <f75m17h@mindspring.com>
Subject: RES: dozen
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:16:24 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mpc.com.br
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
Dear Tony,
The "DOZEN", in fact with their jokes[1] only alerted me that something
needed to be done.
I do not consider that my paper is a personal attack against Jack,
indeed I consider it as an advertisement of a real friend, and indeed
if you read my paper carefully you will find that I wrote: '...
In any case, we would like that he be aware that in writing it we found
also inspiration in Aristotle [who in his Nicomachean Ethics, book 1,
 Chapter 6 said in a similar situation where he could not agree with
the presentations of some of his friends on a  given subject that: 
`...piety requires us to honor truth above our friends'], and also
in our (late) friend Pertti Lounesto that enlightened us for many years
with his posters on errors and counterexamples to 'theorems´ found in
the literature on Clifford algebras.'
Moreover it is quite common for mathematicians to write reviews for
Math. Rev. and the Zentr. für Math. denouncing the very bad mathematics
of many published papers, and using very hard words. I am sending
attached a small sample (read at least the ones written by Dieudonné).
Also, I said to Jack in a previous e-mail: 'Your Mathematics is almost
completely wrong, but if your physical ideas are correct, what I doubt,
they will be vindicate some of these days, and if this happens I while
I am still living I will write a note to my arXiv paper gr-qc/0602111
stating that fact.'
Now, the only physical prediction of Jack's paper is: detectors will
not detec dark matter.
Well, a simple explanation for this would be experiment is: dark matter
does not exist. And indeed, dark matter and dark energy are  'products'
of the supposedly validity of GR for the dynamics of the Universe as a
whole. But this is simply an hypothesis, and I am sure it is a very bad
one. Indeed, there some more autentic explanations for the phenomena
suposedly expalined by the existence of dark matter, as, e..g.,
the Mond theory (http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue18/Physics_18.htm)
Finally I would like to comment on your stamtent:
'2 - If the attack is successful, and Jack's reputation is destroyed,
they you  will be a hero for protecting the children of
the world from "self-delusion" physics.'
I think that with the modern internet the only one that can damage Jack's
reputation is himself. This will certainly happen (if it did not already
happened) if he continues to write statements like the one that he deduced
Einstein's equations from his theory. Or this is self delusion or Jack
is a great joker.
Best regards,
Waldyr
[1] As you probably know I wrote in the last few years several very
critical articles, explicitly saying that their authors did not know
what they are talking about, that they used nonsense mathematics, etc.
So, the  'dozen' could not leave in blank the opportunity to say:
you forgot your Mathematics, etc. Why did I consider this dangerous?
Simply because they are important men that in reality did not like me
very much ( I have been hard with some of them also ) and I am sure
that they will not loose the opportunity to mislead my contact with Jack
and eventually cause some damage to some of my students. This is not a
very beautiful 'game', of course, but it is a game which is being played
since ever. I am quite sure that lawyers play games even ugly than this one.
...
-----Mensagem original-----
 De: Tony Smith 
 Enviada em: quarta-feira, 1 de março de 2006 19:50
 Para: walrod@mpc.com.br
 Cc: f75m17h@mindspring.com; sarfatti@pacbell.net; woit@math.columbia.edu
 Assunto: dozen
Waldyr, you say
"... I [Waldyr] never said that I was being threatened. ...",
and
"... I [Waldyr] received dozen of mails >from all around the world
asking things like  ... If I did not post my notes
I would produce real damage to some of my students
that are asking for financial support to continue their studies.".
The second quote is obviously a statement of fact that
you (and your students) WERE IN FACT BEING THREATENED.
Whether you ever SAID that you were being threatened
(that is, the first quote) is irrelevant.
----------------------------------------
You also said "... of course,
I am not going to say to you who wrote to me
and what exactly those persons said ...".
Do as you feel is best for your interests, but consider:
1 - The "dozen" who in fact threatened you and your students
are using you to attack Jack Sarfatti.
2 - If the attack is successful, and Jack's reputation is destroyed,
they you  will be a hero for protecting the children of
the world from "self-delusion" physics.
3 - However, IF THE ATTACK FAILS AND JACK IS VINDICATED BY HISTORY,
then YOU will be seen as one who killed Jack with hemlock
and History will condemn you as certainly as those who killed
Socrates (to protect the children from his ideas) are now condemned,
and
IF YOU DO NOT NAME THE "DOZEN", THEY WILL GET OFF SCOT FREE,
HAVING HIDDEN BEHIND YOUR NAME,
AND ALL OF THE "DOZEN" WILL JOIN IN THE CONDEMNATION OF YOU.
You, Waldyr, should act according to your conscience,
but I just want to be sure that you take the above factors
into account.
If you decide to send me copies of the messages that you
received from the "dozen", I would be happy,
but the decision is yours.
Tony
PS - For what it is worth,
I am familiar with Jack's physics ideas,
and with his limitations in math technicalities,
and if I were a betting person I would bet that
HISTORY WILL VINDICATE THE SUBSTANCE OF JACK'S PHYSICS IDEAS.
:I'm not sure what all that stuff above is supposed to mean, but it's not the place of Wikipedia to either attack or vindicate Mr. Sarfatti, but merely to recount the facts about him and his theories in a neutral manner. *Dan T.* 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Waldyr Rodrigues

message: Status:  U
From: "Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr." <walrod@mpc.com.br>
To: "'Tony Smith'" <f75m17h@mindspring.com>
Subject: RES: dozen
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:16:24 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mpc.com.br
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
Dear Tony,
The "DOZEN", in fact with their jokes[1] only alerted me that something
needed to be done.
I do not consider that my paper is a personal attack against Jack,
indeed I consider it as an advertisement of a real friend, and indeed
if you read my paper carefully you will find that I wrote: '...
In any case, we would like that he be aware that in writing it we found
also inspiration in Aristotle [who in his Nicomachean Ethics, book 1,
 Chapter 6 said in a similar situation where he could not agree with
the presentations of some of his friends on a  given subject that: 
`...piety requires us to honor truth above our friends'], and also
in our (late) friend Pertti Lounesto that enlightened us for many years
with his posters on errors and counterexamples to 'theorems´ found in
the literature on Clifford algebras.'
Moreover it is quite common for mathematicians to write reviews for
Math. Rev. and the Zentr. für Math. denouncing the very bad mathematics
of many published papers, and using very hard words. I am sending
attached a small sample (read at least the ones written by Dieudonné).
Also, I said to Jack in a previous e-mail: 'Your Mathematics is almost
completely wrong, but if your physical ideas are correct, what I doubt,
they will be vindicate some of these days, and if this happens I while
I am still living I will write a note to my arXiv paper gr-qc/0602111
stating that fact.'
Now, the only physical prediction of Jack's paper is: detectors will
not detec dark matter.
Well, a simple explanation for this would be experiment is: dark matter
does not exist. And indeed, dark matter and dark energy are  'products'
of the supposedly validity of GR for the dynamics of the Universe as a
whole. But this is simply an hypothesis, and I am sure it is a very bad
one. Indeed, there some more autentic explanations for the phenomena
suposedly expalined by the existence of dark matter, as, e..g.,
the Mond theory (http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue18/Physics_18.htm)
Finally I would like to comment on your stamtent:
'2 - If the attack is successful, and Jack's reputation is destroyed,
they you  will be a hero for protecting the children of
the world from "self-delusion" physics.'
I think that with the modern internet the only one that can damage Jack's
reputation is himself. This will certainly happen (if it did not already
happened) if he continues to write statements like the one that he deduced
Einstein's equations from his theory. Or this is self delusion or Jack
is a great joker.
Best regards,
Waldyr
[1] As you probably know I wrote in the last few years several very
critical articles, explicitly saying that their authors did not know
what they are talking about, that they used nonsense mathematics, etc.
So, the  'dozen' could not leave in blank the opportunity to say:
you forgot your Mathematics, etc. Why did I consider this dangerous?
Simply because they are important men that in reality did not like me
very much ( I have been hard with some of them also ) and I am sure
that they will not loose the opportunity to mislead my contact with Jack
and eventually cause some damage to some of my students. This is not a
very beautiful 'game', of course, but it is a game which is being played
since ever. I am quite sure that lawyers play games even ugly than this one.
...
-----Mensagem original-----
 De: Tony Smith 
 Enviada em: quarta-feira, 1 de março de 2006 19:50
 Para: walrod@mpc.com.br
 Cc: f75m17h@mindspring.com; sarfatti@pacbell.net; woit@math.columbia.edu
 Assunto: dozen
Waldyr, you say
"... I [Waldyr] never said that I was being threatened. ...",
and
"... I [Waldyr] received dozen of mails >from all around the world
asking things like  ... If I did not post my notes
I would produce real damage to some of my students
that are asking for financial support to continue their studies.".
The second quote is obviously a statement of fact that
you (and your students) WERE IN FACT BEING THREATENED.
Whether you ever SAID that you were being threatened
(that is, the first quote) is irrelevant.
----------------------------------------
You also said "... of course,
I am not going to say to you who wrote to me
and what exactly those persons said ...".
Do as you feel is best for your interests, but consider:
1 - The "dozen" who in fact threatened you and your students
are using you to attack Jack Sarfatti.
2 - If the attack is successful, and Jack's reputation is destroyed,
they you  will be a hero for protecting the children of
the world from "self-delusion" physics.
3 - However, IF THE ATTACK FAILS AND JACK IS VINDICATED BY HISTORY,
then YOU will be seen as one who killed Jack with hemlock
and History will condemn you as certainly as those who killed
Socrates (to protect the children from his ideas) are now condemned,
and
IF YOU DO NOT NAME THE "DOZEN", THEY WILL GET OFF SCOT FREE,
HAVING HIDDEN BEHIND YOUR NAME,
AND ALL OF THE "DOZEN" WILL JOIN IN THE CONDEMNATION OF YOU.
You, Waldyr, should act according to your conscience,
but I just want to be sure that you take the above factors
into account.
If you decide to send me copies of the messages that you
received from the "dozen", I would be happy,
but the decision is yours.
Tony
PS - For what it is worth,
I am familiar with Jack's physics ideas,
and with his limitations in math technicalities,
and if I were a betting person I would bet that
HISTORY WILL VINDICATE THE SUBSTANCE OF JACK'S PHYSICS IDEAS.
:I'm not sure what all that stuff above is supposed to mean, but it's not the place of Wikipedia to either attack or vindicate Mr. Sarfatti, but merely to recount the facts about him and his theories in a neutral manner. *Dan T.* 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =========================================================

message: Ambi's Reply  "I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Ambi 03:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ID Theft Ambi?

message: What is "crackpot" in Sarfatti's http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 ? What are Lethe's degrees in physics etc? What's his CV that makes him competent to make such a harsh judgment on a public figure with a PhD in physics from the University of California whose views are taken seriously at very high levels of the USG Intelligence-Defense Community?
:I wonder whom you are addressing?  I doubt anyone else reading this will know my real identity.  If you want to know that, you'll have to ask me. -lethe talk [ +] 03:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I can debate with you whether you yourself are a crackpot without violation of WP:NPA. -lethe talk [ +] 03:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who exactly is Lethe?

message: Humorous but inappropriate material moved to Wikipedia:BJAODN 42: The Answer to Bad Jokes, the Universe, and Other Deleted Nonsense. -Will Beback 01:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Crackpot" is a term of abuse 

message: Is there a point to all of that badly-formatted stuff that was apparently pasted in from e-mail? *Dan T.* 13:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Par for the course with Sarfatti, I'm afraid.  I hope he doesn't think anyone's going to read through all that. -lethe talk [ +] 14:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You provide an excellent motivation for me to make sure that I never reveal my real name here.  I'm afraid of what you would do with that information.  Call my department, maybe. -lethe talk [ +] 04:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Now I wish it were possible to even keep my username and userpage hidden from you. -lethe talk [ +] 08:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there some sort of point?