From: "Robert A. Shannon" 
Subject: life extension and "suppression".
Message-ID: <4F06+soEVkA@cs010.NECTECH.COM>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 10:20:40 EDT

->  SearchNet's   neotech   Mailing List

Jerry Decker has posted a message on the subject of life extension,
and made good references to the bioelectric field, especially where it
is affected by electormagnetic and other radiations.

What is missing is that the changes of this bioelectric field are in
part, natural.

We are designed to die, it's part of our greater evolution.

So far, no one has addressed the fact that extending the human life
expectancy will increase the impac we have on the biosphere.  Until a
major shift in our thinking occurs, any life span extension technology
would be highly self destructive.

We cannot properly support the people we have now, but not because it
cannot be done. This must change first, then such technology would
probably not be needed, as the human span would increase naturally, as
it is claimed was the case long ago.  Get with the program!

Some say that if great minds had longer lives, we would be better off.
Great minds have developed weapons and idologies which have so far
ballanced out the progress we have made.  As evidence of this, I
present the current state of the world to you all.  Take a close look
if you have a strong gut and a weak nose.

As I said before, I work best with a deadline.  So do most people.
Increasing the human span could reduce the "through put" of many great
minds, just as being given "all the time needed" can delay my progress
on a given project.  We have only so much time, so that we recognise
the need to get things done for the benifit of all.  Take away the
time pressure, and throughput most often falls.

What's wrong with the idea of earning a greater life span?  People do
this all the time, by working in their own minds and hearts.  This
must be earned by changing our society as a whole.

With that said, I must address a statement made by Jerry Decker.  I
would like to say first that I find this task quite distasteful.

Jerry wrote :

I have spoken with Robert on a couple of occasions and we definitely
disagreed as to WHO should be allowed to benefit not only from life
extension (with quality) but other advanced technologies, specifically
scalar.  Such suppressive tendencies are the very reason we don't have
overunity, antigravity and other such devices available and in use
today...there are many people who are working to change this in a big
way.

Sorry, Robert, I don't mean that like it sounds, just that I claim the
right to disagree with anyone who takes the approach that they ortheir
group are the sole arbiters of advanced technology and who will be
allowed to use or study it.  We'll get it, maybe not with identical
approaches, but we WILL 'make it so' (to coin a phrase.....)...>>>
Jerry/KeelyNet

Jerry does indeed have the right to disagree with anyone who takes a
"suppressive approach", or any other approach he does not agree with.
He also says that he does not mean this as it sounds, but does not say
what the difference between how it sounds and what he means actually
is.

Readers are left with the idea that I somehow support some form of
"suppressive" like approach where new technologies are concernd.  Some
readers on this list server might be aware of a past unfortunate
series of events which took place on Jerry's KeelyNet system, others
are not.  None are aware of all that transpired however.

While I refuse to bring the details and transcripts of this mess into
the light of day, some form of closure to this now ongoing mess is
needed.  Untill the post from Jerry to Neotech, Jerry has been
unwilling to communicate with me, and has not answered my emails to
him.

Despite Jerry's statement that this sounds somehow different than his
intent, readers are still left with the idea that I somehow have or
support some form of "suppressive tendencies".  I am compelled to
refute this implication.

Some time ago, a Keelynet user asked Jerry Decker for information on,
and contact information for a group I work with.  Jerry's reply to
this user, Jeff Romano, took the form of a warning that this group
might be cause for concern, and warned Jeff away.  Jerry did not
provide the contact information he had at his disposal, for exactly
this purpose.

Is this suppressive?  I think so.  It so happened that Jeff Romano
works for the same company I do, and his office is only a few hundred
feet from mine now.  Imagine my surprise, and Jeff's, when this
apparent "suppression" on Jerry's part was discovered.

KeelyNet claims to not allow users to use "handles", real names ony,
yet KeelyNet has allowed specific person(s) to use false names, and
has provided this person or persons contact information for people in
this very same research group.

This person has then repeatedly contacted members with offers of quite
substantial sums of money to sell "secrets" from this same research
group, which would then become the sole property of that person.
While Jerry Decker and Keelynet cannot be held accountable for this
persons actions, we must hold him accountable to his own publicly
stated principles.

There appears to be a double standard in place here.  Jerry's actions
are demonstrably not in line with his publicly stated possition.
Sorry Jerry, KeelyNet's got a bad case of moles.

Since Jerry appears to have joined the list server recently, he has
apparently missed the posts on working circuits.  Information on this
subject is already being released to interested list server members
that responded to the earlier messages.  Is this "suppressive" on my
part in some way?

While it is true that our group did not release what Jerry wanted when
he wanted, we must be true to our own individual consciences.  The
work we are involved in requires a high degree of technical acumen.
If we did not release information to people who cannot accurately
measure and test an over-unity condition, then we at least display
concern for the safety of these people, as well as that of our members
and their work.

Jerry, we need to close this issue, I am completely unwilling to drag
this ugly mess out into public any further than I have reluctantly
done now.  I ask that we talk, by email or phone, and work together to
resolve this issue, for the good of all concerned.

If this is not possible, then I implore you to cease openly impugning
a group you fail to understand, and are unwilling to try to
understand.  If you wish information from our group, then work with
our group, not against it.  Is this any different than granting
greater access rights to thoses who contribute informationon KeelyNet?

For those who have read my point of view on entrenched viewpoints, here may
be an example of my theory in action, or not.  The ball is in Jerry's
court now.


->  Posted by: "Robert A. Shannon" 

---SnetMgr 0.60 [r0001]
 * Origin: i_ufo-l@world.std.com <-> FidoNet (1:330/202)