What to do about Ken

[ken_behrendt]

Part 2:

Yet, on the other hand, I am aware that my extraordinary productivity can be intimidating to other members. I'm sorry...that was never my intention.

I now propose a simple way to settle this matter.

Let's just put the matter of your acceptance of my counter offer to a simple vote. Set up a poll with two choices. A.) Ken and his research stay on this board. Or, B.) Ken and his research leave this board.

One member, one vote, one time. Keep it simple.

If I lose, I'll depart for good and resume private research. If I win, I will consider it as an apology for this most regrettable incident and you must then accept the conditions of my counter offer.


ken

[Stewart]

If I was to accept what has presently been inflicted on me, it would set a dangerous precendent that could be used to stifle or intimidate other creative Bessler researchers in the future.

I don't think there's any danger of other members being stifled (honest non-abusive ones obviously). Scott is an extremely lenient and patient forum host who gives everyone a chance to have their say. If anything you are the current cause of any stifling.

Who on earth do you think you are? You're no more important than any of the rest of us members! And for you to keep questioning Scott's authority by offering bargains as if you think he would be bothered if you leave is astoundingly arrogant. If it comes to a vote and you end up staying with no changes to your posting habits then this forum will not be fit for purpose. More members will leave or stay away, and new members will probably be put off joining up. It's your choice as to whether you play by the rules or leave, and don't try and suggest anyone but yourself is to blame or that you're being unfairly treated.

Stewart

EDIT:

I will consider it as an apology...

No one owes you an apology, and if anything you should be apologising to Scott for making his life difficult and forcing him to spend time working on features to accommodate you.

[rlortie]

Ken,

At my my departure from employment with the US Army Corps, they gave me a very impressive retirement party!

The comment was made by many that I would be missed and it was going to be difficult in finding a replacement as diversified as I.

When I went to the podium to except my awards and make a speech, I carried with me a glass of water. After a number of people got up and made their farewell and appreciation speechs. It was my turn.

After the usual expected speech, I stuck my finger in the glass of water, I pulled it out and said to all, SEE! it did not leave a hole.

Need I say more?

Ralph

[trevie]

I recommend this thread be moved to the members only part of the forum. It might not be a bad idea to lock it.

☯

I could go one better, delete the thread!
why be haunted by it.

[Fletcher]

"The Wrath of Ken". Beam him up Scotty. CU Ken.

[Michael]

Well stated Fletcher. Ken, you just don't seem to have a grip on reality. I don't think anyone is intimidated by your posts. Why on earth would you ever think quantity was more important than quality?

[Michael]

Ralph I don't think Eric would be so quick to give you a glowing reccomendation if he knew you had joined what he considers "the dark side". :0

The only thing that's really bad about his board is Aut.

[scott]

No deal, Ken. In the spirit of compromise however, I just doubled your total word limit to 600 per day, 3 posts per day, 200 words each. That is more than enough to allow you to make meaningful contributions here, without drowning out the discussion in the process. In fact, the new limit would still allow you to be the most prolific poster here, so it will have to remain on a trial basis.

I am aware that my extraordinary productivity can be intimidating to other members

Ken, honestly, if you truly believe what you just said, you might want to seriously consider seeing a psychiatrist.

-Scott

[rlortie]

Scott,

I am aware that my extraordinary productivity can be intimidating to other members

Did I not mention something about "visions of Grandiose" in a private chat? I think I misspelled it. :-)

Since Stewarts return I have posted twelve carbon copy letters evenly divided to members of my private mailing list. Four to those who have quit posting completely, four to intermittent posters and four to active members.

My letter simply asked them to vote for Stewart, I implied to use their own judgment and that I was not attempting any influence on their decision. All asked for was for them just to vote.

The results are plain to see, Stewart has jumped potentially, and is now up to the position he has earned and Ken has lost a notch.

So I ask all of you to start using the rep bar for it's intended use. You may not like it but it will curtail a lot of this ongoing frustration that is driving members of integrity and valued input away!

And if you wish to hit my red for making such a request, go ahead. If this forum does not get a little house cleaning I will be leaving anyway.

And to make it clear to Ken that I believe his statement of intimidation is a laugh, I will respond by saying "I will take some members with me".
" extraordinary productivity" Are you sure this was not intended for the JOKE thread!

Ralph

[LustInBlack]

Ralph,

I always vote..

I vote when necessary, when I see some good creativity or good ideas.


Ken,

Grow up . [From a 25 years old "boy"]

[Michael]

I agree with you on that Ralph. If there's one person who hasn't played backroom politics, hasn't had ego fights, who's been forthright, hasn't begged for votes, and has done an enormous amount of work regarding the Bessler research it's been Stewart.

In all earnestness a true Bessler saint and a model for what the *positive drive of Bessler was hoped for by long standing members of this board.

* Positive meaning pro Bessler. There is also the negative route or skeptic route and there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is constructive.
If both aren't explored, it's hacksville.

[rlortie]

Ralph I don't think Eric would be so quick to give you a glowing reccomendation if he knew you had joined what he considers "the dark side". :0

The only thing that's really bad about his board is Aut.

Eric does know! He knows that I am searching for sources of new non polluting energy and helping to stifle the scams and frauds that attempt to sell such unworkable schemes. Their influence is what we do not need. Therefore I keep an open mind to both sides of the fence.

I am a silent member of his forum and was involved in the lawsuit between the State of Washington verses Dennis Lee some years back. I also used to keep an eye on his forum BWT (Better World Technology) that is until he changed it, when he started his religious campaign approach.

Eric may list besslerwheel.com on his skeptical list just as Crank.net but he has always kept an open door to the prospects. That is why he offers a reward to anyone who can prove a claim of "Free Energy"

Ralph

[Michael]

He offers his reward because he is absolutely 100 percent certain no one will be coming to claim it, but he would be happy if they could.

I didn't know if he ever knew or not and out of respect for you I never mentioned it.

[ovyyus]

He [Eric] offers his reward because he is absolutely 100 percent certain no one will be coming to claim it, but he would be happy if they could.

Therefore he isn't absolutely 100% certain.

While I might think the best chance of solving Bessler's wheel is to examine thermal solutions, I can't be 100% certain. Jim might think the best chance for a solution is to somehow harness CF - but he can't be certain. Ken thought, before he decided to sacrifice himself to some flawed ethical principle, that the best chance of a solution might be E=MC2 - he only seemed certain. John hopes that gravity alone holds the answer - but I'm sure he might be happy with any solution that is shown to replicate Bessler's demonstrations. Who, with the exception of raving religious lunatics, can be absolutely 100% certain of anything - especially uninvented technology - and be 100% right?

Eric likes to hedge a bet both ways - engineering a little piece of centre stage for himself regardless of future outcome ;)

[Michael]

No Bill, I understand your statement and why you said it but it isn't valid to my point . If you have ever had an in depth discussion with Eric you would probably know that like any " good sceptic" he doesn't think there is any chance or a hope in hell that free energy will ever come to be. Maybe you would have been happier if I said "in Erics mind" he is 100 percent certain, but I think, I hope Ralph knows what I meant. Eric would be more than happy if someone were to actually create free energy because the living conditions of humanity on mass would go up.

Doesn't sound like such a bad guy, even if he is a bit anal - which he readily admits to.

Your point about Eric is more of an opinion. If you talked with him you would see he has no problems stating exactly what his thoughts are. I'm not saying he is an easy person to deal with. I'm not saying he isn't coveting some attention, which he'd probably admit. He isn't playing both sides of the fence.