Looking for Mr. Goodbar....er....Andrew Bolland

[wags]

Nancy on Equipment:-

Priceless.

The vast majority of equipment and supplies used in developing the Hutchison technology were "junk" that people wanted to just get rid of, or that John literally scavenged (as in dumpster diving).

John has found (and I concur) that what is purchased at Home Depot, Radio Shack, etc. is the real "junk".
By understanding the basics of how things work, quality and consistent results can be accomplished using really nice scavenged parts.

For example:
The mobile anti-radiation units.
Components---a penny, a rusty bolt, litz wire (old, used litz better than new), piece of 1/2" copper pipe (old, used pipe better than new), rochelle salts, galena, finely crushed quartz...and magnetite, collected from the beach using a magnet scavenged from a blown speaker. Magnetic field for recording is created by using the core of an old, scavenged starter motor (activated by speaker wires carrying the tones.

If you have a list of components that you think you need, I would be happy discussing with you proper scavenging.
However, the components you think you need, may not be what you actually need.
You may need some sand from the beach.

Nancy

[kevin]

Wags,
"priceless"
It is indeed...priceless good advice.
Dr Brown did just that.
Kevin

[Mikado14]

Mikado,
I have never appeared in court "pro se", it has always been "pro per". Huge difference.
The method in creating an argument for court is to first identify the "problem".
Then the "undisputed facts", those things that both sides agree upon.
Then the "law" (relationship of one thing to another). How does the law apply to the facts?
In the lower (district) courts you can discuss evidence, and then the "finder of facts" ... the judge or the jury ... decides what the facts are based upon the evidence presented by both sides.
In the appellate courts (Court of Appeals and Supreme Court) you can only discuss the "undisputed facts, or facts found by the judge or jury" and how the law was applied.
The function of the district court(s) and the appellate court(s) are extremely different.

The vast majority of equipment and supplies used in developing the Hutchison technology were "junk" that people wanted to just get rid of, or that John literally scavenged (as in dumpster diving).

John has found (and I concur) that what is purchased at Home Depot, Radio Shack, etc. is the real "junk".
By understanding the basics of how things work, quality and consistent results can be accomplished using really nice scavenged parts.

For example:
The mobile anti-radiation units.
Components---a penny, a rusty bolt, litz wire (old, used litz better than new), piece of 1/2" copper pipe (old, used pipe better than new), rochelle salts, galena, finely crushed quartz...and magnetite, collected from the beach using a magnet scavenged from a blown speaker. Magnetic field for recording is created by using the core of an old, scavenged starter motor (activated by speaker wires carrying the tones.

If you have a list of components that you think you need, I would be happy discussing with you proper scavenging.
However, the components you think you need, may not be what you actually need.
You may need some sand from the beach.

Nancy

I see you came back in and did an edit. You should be gracious enough that after posts are responded, you either make note of an edit or do an entire new posts.

Secondly, you are and have effectively derailed this thread and I have helped to do this. If you wish to discuss the topic, of which I have said I am not through with by ending each post with "to be continued", then do so. Otherwise, start a new thread about law or your expertise in scavenging equipment.

One more thing Nancy, in regard to the law. I am not going to argue what you wrote but suffice it to say that I have had two semesters of college credits for a para-legal. Secondly, what you fail to realize is that each court has it's own rules of civil procedure, Federal are referred to as the FRCP and then the District it is for.

This conversation is ended. Start a new thread to continue. One of the rules I mentioned at one time as to the derailing of a thread. I realize that conversations meander but this thread was specific and not general.

Everyone on the same page? If so...good...if not...then I will delete and move to another thread.

Mikado

[Nancy_Hutchison]

Mikado,
I made a post as to my observation concerning Andrew Bolland.
It was YOU that "derailed the thread", not me.
You wanted to spout off about "legal stuff".
And then YOU decided to delete my responses.

now...did you learn this technique from Linda?, or did Linda learn it from you?

Nancy

[LuisP]

Mikado

Nancy’s original post was, in fact, entirely her opinion on your post about Bolland.

Either this a “blog” like thread, meaning, only you can post – and it should then, from my point of view, be stated since its inception – or anyone reading it (it is your objective, is it not ?) has a corresponding right to comment upon what he/she reads.

No need, again, from my perspective – and if I may express my own opinion - to “delete/move” posts.

Just a need to state the ROE (Rules of Engagement) of this particular thread.

Much less, to open another stating implying several people “can’t read”.

It is precisely because we can, and because you want us to (or you would not have posted), that one of us – Nancy, but it could have been anyone – commented what you wrote.


I’d advise a slower posting speed, balanced by a speedier rate of thinking about them.



PS : are Hobbit’s, Cat’s and Wags’s posts “on topic” ? or are you going to also move them ?
PPS : are your answers to “Nancy’s off topic” posts also going to be moved ?
PPPS : Is this post of mine going to be moved ?
PPPPS : are you moving all of the above to a thread named “since Nancy and others cannot read ?”

[Mikado14]

Actually Luis, I did think about moving all the posts that were not on topic. Yes, I did mention the legal term "pro se" first in response to being linear in what one writes and as to Nancy writing a legal tort. It was a reference only. It was Nancy coming back and I did admit that I did partake in it and that I helped to derail the thread topic.

Really Luis, did I delete only? I started a new thread and copied it all over there. Nothing missing. I should have nipped it in the bud in the beginning - politely. But let me point something out to you. You have started threads in where you have said "to be continued". Individuals gave you the respect and may have commented but waited patiently for you to...."continue". How would you have felt if you saw it going in a direction that was different? How would you have felt if someone totally started to question what you were writing and giving an opinion before the story was completed? Would you listen to a movie critic who only watched the first 15 minutes of a show and then gave a critique of it? If you were the writer of that, how would you feel?

It is my fault for indulging and letting it go for I do want individuals to speak freely. I just figured, and wrongly it would appear, that to end a post with "to be continued", there would have been a bit of respect to wait until I was done speaking. I have given you that respect.

I was wrong. Post whatever you wish. I will leave the other thread so as not to lose the posts and you can continue with what ever anyone feels is pertinent to the topic or not even though I never did finish.

But for future reference, there are no limitations to the thread limit on this site. The PHP has no limit. Limitations are with the server. You create as many threads as you wish. Enjoy

Mikado

[LuisP]

Mikado
Firstly, a thread is “derailed” the moment it is opened (hope that doesn’t sound too paternalizing, for it is the plain truth as I understand it, really).

When I, or anyone, opens a thread, he/she has a very specific goal and objective and the simple fact that it is directed towards others will create the conditions for those others to comment and participate in it with very different contributions from the ones that were, perhaps, intended to obtain from them.

Fact of life, or should I say, fact of a Forum.

To deal with it is therefore inherently evident, and necessary. To do so by resorting to “Jus Imperium”, just because “I own the place” or because, through that empowering capacity, you judge what others are saying as being “off-topic”, is below the ability and intelligence everyone – starting from me – recognizes in you.
More, below what you yourself answered me about this specific question.

Secondly, “to be continued” obviously says to everyone else that a poster is not done with the subject he addresses. Yes, I have – and am still – doing such posts and you can be assured that waiting upon its conclusion (respect ?, yes, respect !) is not lost on me.

But I beg to differ on the following : for anyone meanwhile to comment, to dispute, to criticize, to even disrupt the ongoing and “to be continued” post is, again, a fact possible to happen inside a Forum.

Up to one to expect it, and to choose to give it importance.
Or not.

And keep following with the course he had set upon, regardless of those interruptions, or “distractions”.
You choose what to do.

And if you choose to respond, you have foregone the right to claim silence.

This is how I see it.
Sorry if it does not meet your agreement.

But rest assured of two things, from where I stand :
1 - No, you were not wrong to expect a “bit of respect to wait until I was done speaking” and in having “given me” that respect.
2 - You were only wrong to regard that, as the only form of respect.

Respectfully,
Luis

[Mikado14]

Post move back


Original post deleted and moved for being off topic

Re: Looking for Mr. Goodbar....er....Andrew Bolland
Unread postby kevin » Mon May 26, 2014 2:42 pm

Nancy-Hutchison,
SYMBIOTIC.
It is a two way deal with all materials, and it is largely dependant on where materials were made, and where they have been utilised etc etc.
Their signature , as such will be vital to how they then SYMBIOTICALLY interact with the creative flows.
It is what I found interesting in the de-guassing activities reported at the time of the so called Philiadelphia experiment.
Kevin
kevin
The Hobbit

Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 1:24 pm

[Mikado14]

Post move back


Original post deleted and moved for being off topic


Re: Looking for Mr. Goodbar....er....Andrew Bolland
Unread postby Nancy_Hutchison » Mon May 26, 2014 2:43 pm

Mikado14 wrote:
In fact, just looked it up:

Pro per
A term derived from the Latin "in propria persona," meaning "for one's self," used in some states to describe a person who handles his or her own case, without a lawyer.

Pro se
Latin for "for oneself, on one's own behalf." When a litigant proceeds without legal counsel, they are said to be proceeding "pro se.

Both taken from a law dictionary.

Mikado


1. Black's Law Dictionary is inaccurate.
2. In propria persona, pro per, means "in my proper person". A natural person with all rights secured. Appearance is AS a natural person, not FOR ones' "self". Self is different that person. There is ONE judge that I appeared before in state district court, and when I stated by appearance as "in propria persona" he sat up straight and said, "You are appearing as a natural person, that changes everything."

also from our previous discussion:
Nancy:
One of the first things that was slammed at me at the Token, and repeatedly slammed at me, was MONEY.
In our relationship, you were upset because you spent money (even though I did not ask you to do so).

Mikado:
I see your memory is very selective just as Lindas' or perhaps you are only remembering what you want to. The money was only one part. If that is all you perceived or comprehended from everything I said then I guess you are correct for arguing with you is like pissing into the wind and believing you will not get wet. Okay, your right.

My response:
Please don't add to what I say.
I pointed out you were upset because you spent money (even though I did not ask you to do so).
I did not go into other things you were/are upset with me about.
When you have a disagreement with a family member, such as where to spend a vacation together, do you discuss ALL the disagreements you had with the person? Or do you solve the one issue and move on?

The subject matter of my post, had to do with people and money.
It is NOT that my "memory is selective", it is that I was selective about the subject matter that I was discussing.
So, we agree that you were upset because you spent money (even though I did not ask you to do so).

I also stated:
Tell me I'm wrong.
What I see is the conflict with Andrew Bolland centered around money.

You said:
Your wrong. (grammar Nazi here: you are wrong, or you're wrong)
However, generally speaking, exploring science, real or pseudo, comes with a price tag. To think that one can go to Lowe's, Home Depot or Radio Shack and obtain the necessary components to achieve results, well, sometimes it may be possible but in any event, all those places require a currency exchange for the goods. If you know anyone giving things away, I have a list here.....

I do not understand how your statement about needing money to go to Lowe's has anything to do with with my statement that the conflict with Andrew Bolland centered around money.

Nancy
The t

[Mikado14]

Mikado,
I made a post as to my observation concerning Andrew Bolland.
It was YOU that "derailed the thread", not me.
You wanted to spout off about "legal stuff".
And then YOU decided to delete my responses.

now...did you learn this technique from Linda?, or did Linda learn it from you?

Nancy

Nancy, owing to the fact that you mentioned that you were a "self proclaimed narcissist" I would expect you to come out with the Urkelism of ...Did I do that?

You made a post in regard to Andrew about my being linear. I responded and used the fact that you claimed that you filed in a Federal Court and represented yourself. I used the term "pro se" for that is what it is referred to in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania. YOU continued it from there by correcting. You always "correct" everyone and that correction is what does the derailing because you have to be correct. I am sure there are others who realize what I am saying. Further, I also said that I was as guilty for responding to you which only aggravated the situation because, like Linda, you can't shut up for you need to be the last one who speaks.

As to deleting your responses. They are not deleted. Did you not read my post? It said to start a new thread or I would move and delete the posts in this thread.

You don't read...pure and simple. I would not do the same to you if you had a thread or anyone on here. The derailing of threads is rampant on the Token, since it appears I am being referred to as Linda for deleting of which they are NOT, they are moved as I said I would do.

And furthermore, you don't read and the thread I moved them to is correct.

I said anyone want them moved back and Luis asked, so be it but as far as I am concerned, this thread is dead as well. I find it ignorant and disrespectful to interrupt when someone is "continuing" and that you are Nancy.

I have no special controls and do not preside over this site as some others do. I do not care what you talk about, how you talk about it as long as there is some respect at some point. I have noticed that some individuals have used the four letter word. If it is needed, go for it.

Perhaps, and here is a thought, Nancy wanted this thread derailed because of the interaction with Andrew back in 2000. Just a thought.

Mikado