Questions and complaints about moderation + unlisted, mostly unmoderated, free discussion

Forum Feedback
415

You made the ad hoc and self-serving claim above that anything sent to you is not private. I’ll guess anything you send out is not private then also. I’ll use that excuse anyway to post here this silliness you sent me:

Nothing really new here, but it does reaffirm your position. You’re also a terrible advocate for your own case.

I think I can do two obvious things in response, accept it at face value and put you in time out until you’ve let the moderation team know you’ve changed your position, or ignore it and deal with any issues that arise from that position (like repeatedly resubmitting or editing a moderated post instead of appealing the decision in the appropriate place) when they arise – which could result in longer and longer time outs if those issues arise quickly after the end of a previous time out.

I guess unbeknownst to you, I have been acting as an advocate on your behalf since you started posting here, just in my trying to be a fair moderator and being lenient in the enforcement of the rules and being overly verbose, in an effort to try to guide your posting in the right direction. Since you are not showing enough evidence of growth and you are trying to post a lot, exacerbating any issue and exhausting the patience of the moderation team, I have to give more priority to the other forum members or readers, present and future, and be more strict.

You’re like a cat trying to catch the light from a laser. I don’t know how much light cares about being called names. If you want to argue your case, make clear how the comment currently under consideration does not violate the rules, preferably using language and logic that a 10-year-old is able to follow.

From the above, a third less obvious option emerges: if you are not willing to accept me as an advocate on your behalf (and you being such a terrible advocate yourself), perhaps you could try to recruit another advocate on your behalf. Joe comes to mind. But understand that my goal is to move your position, not that of the forum.

You yourself also of course have options. You could go fly a kite to clear your mind, you could ignore any moderator action, you could change your position, you could stop posting, you could recruit an advocate, you could propose a change to the rules, and so on.

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. – anonymous

416


I googled KPS Kite Power Systems, clicking on the “news” tab of the google search, and you get an endless list of $millions raised, headquarters secured, hundreds or thousands of homes powered, accomplishments that will never take place, etc., etc., etc. Disturbing to read in retrospect. Maybe at some point people will begin to realize what I mean by “Fake future news”.
How many times do you need to read the same story with the names changed, before you see them for what they are?
Well at least they produced a nice group-selfie…
“How could a million flies be wrong”?
:slight_smile:

1 Like
417

@dougselsam, repeated soap-boxing. / cross-posting similar content.

418

Roddy: I would not worry about such reports trying to sell you a more detailed report. The authors know nothing about any of it anyway. It’s bad enough that would-be innovators to wind energy themselves know so little, but idle bystanders know less than nothing and their reports are worthless. In my humble opinion, what’s the difference what anyone says at some conference? How does it affect us? Why bother? In 20 years who will care what someone “said” at some “conference”? Talk is cheap, as you may begin to notice. What are they gonna tell you, how many hundred or thousand houses they “will” power “next year”? Either you know what you’re doing or you don’t. No amount of “conferences” will save you or anyone else. Save your money and time and stick to your knitting.
:slight_smile:

1 Like
419

@dougselsam, repeated soapboxing.

420

@Windy_Skies Yeah well try “repeat listening”.
This has been going on since long before wannabe-wind-energy went airborne.

421

Why though. I heard you the first time… And I can actually make up my own mind about things. Now if you had an actual technical critique or something, perhaps someone could learn something from that.

422

Doug comments how the promise of future is repeating in each article. What is too much? The promises repeatedly repeated, or the denunciation of these promises also repeatedly repeated?

423

The same basic message posted again and again in slight variations in unrelated topics. If you have something to say just do it in its own topic. Discuss the thing under discussion in the topic, not your talking point. If you post off-topic like that, you risk making the topic about your talking point and we don’t want every topic to be about “fake future news” or “12 years” of this or that.

I contest the claim that promises are repeatedly repeated in this forum, or at least so much that they become a problem. And in the end, I hope everyone here is able in some degree to separate fact from fiction. Like I say, I can actually make up my own mind about things, I don’t need or want someone constantly shouting at me what (not) to believe.

You can actually go into some depth in a dedicated topic as well, and you’ll not as easily have people ignore everything you say by behaving like a broken record.

Here is a topic related to what Doug is talking about: Disruptive Innovation

424

Geez I would think people would have something better to do than constantly moving sincere posts from topic to topic and trying to “shoot the messenger” when people point out simple facts such as the repeated statements of how many hundred or thousand houses “will” be powered “next year”. It gets pretty silly after a while to keep reading the same exact statement with the company and location changed. I guess I’m the only one who notices, which makes it seem important to let people know my observations. If someone else pointed this out it would save me the trouble. Ever heard the term “shoot the messenger”? That describes a wrong reaction to true information because the recipient would prefer to remain under the influence of false information. How about someone else flag the false statements and save me the trouble?

425

Roddy I did not mean to seem like I was telling you what to do.
Maybe I should start a topic about what I’ve noticed over the years, about what seems like consistent bad advice given to tech startup efforts.

426

There is more to life than technical critique. But if a company says they “will” power X-“hundred houses” by date Y, that is a technical statement. To reply that you believe it is false is a technical critique. If you have read that same exact statement by several companies over many years, it is a further technical critique to point out the repetitive nature of the statement as well as the fact that it has never turned out to be true - date Y comes and goes and no (zero) (0) houses are powered, and no apology, explanation or acknowledgement of the statement is ever even mentioned.
In real fields of endeavor, where people have basic integrity, companies are held to their statements. I just read an article today about Lucid Motors, for example, after watching an interview with a key executive hired away from Tesla on the financial channel. This company supplies all the batteries for Formula-1 racing cars which are half electric these days. Lucid has a luxury sedan with 400 miles of range. Sounded very promising. One topic though, was how Lucid’s projected date to have this luxury sedan available for delivery in 2019 did not happen. Lucid is a little behind schedule. These are adults that pay attention and take what is promised seriously. Serious statements deserve serious attention. That is IF you are dealing with real adults, real people making real decisions whether to invest in company or buy a car. On the other hand, some people, in some fields, WANT to be lied to. Take religion for instance - certain religious statements of impending events may have been repeated for thousands of years and never happened, people still believe them. Well that is a major difference between a real world conversation and a religious diatribe. Which would you prefer for a technical discussion about wind energy, a fact-based discussion, or religious diatribe where facts are intentionally avoided? I’d have to say a lot of these discussions relating to clean energy seem to fall more into the religious category than the technical category. That is your choice. Personally, I would prefer a fact-based conversation that keeps track of false statements and alerts people to repeated, typical, endemic false statements of certain kinds. I think it is worth mentioning. Obviously the religious zealots would rather help cover up all such statements, but I respectfully disagree with that approach. If an entire wannabe industry is rife with falsehoods, serious adults are concerned, childish religious zealots are more concerned with attempted enforcing of ignorance. I’ve mentioned before, in this field, facts are literally unwanted. It’s like telling drunk people at a party at 1:00 AM to be careful lest they become alcoholics. It suddenly occurs to me I am just wasting my time here. I keep thinking I’m talking to adults. Silly me. Sorry about that, kids.

1 Like
427

You’ve laid out your argument. I’ve laid out my argument here: Disruptive Innovation

My point here is, please, if you want to talk about this, start a new topic about it or something.

428

News reporting and market reporting is genius work way beyond our Ken.
Writing authorative fantasies within simple caveats and convincing people it is worth a fortune to read it… That’s a talent.

429

Glad, I read through your long message this time Doug…
I did recently consider whether it was worth marketing daisy as the embodyment of a host of angels…

430

The issue of censorship does not go away by continued censorship. Longer and longer “time outs” are not going to work.

431

Windy Skies is at it again, censoring important AWE discussion from public view. His own postings are far less pertinent to AWE.

Something must be done to stop him. He has no conscience about relentless destruction of the public record and suppression of free speech. That he is anonymous in his abusive authority is super creepy.

432

I would like to praise @Windy_Skies ’ judicious moderation here. Indeed once again @kitefreak confuses the readers by changing the meaning of the words according to the realities. Soon he will tell you that a simple kite is an AWES.

1 Like
433

Pierre, sure, go ahead and praise Censorship as “judicious”. Free Speech in AWE? No praise from you.

Yes, its been written many years- a toy kite is formally an AWES; a airborne system based on wind energy. Physics World even cites Euler’s Jouet quote this month, in kite energy context.

Windy Skies is a poor judge of AWE and enlightened moderation.

434

I split these two topics:

| What do you call underwater AWE? - off topic discussion split from [Minesto Underwater AWE News]

| Is "AWE" already "commercially viable"? - off topic discussion split from [Makani shutdown]

The discussions were off-topic in the original topic.

I also hid these new topics. That’s perhaps more contentious. The discussions argue over definitions. I think I hid them because I’m not interested in reading endless arguing over definitions and I think others are not either. If it were a discussion, maybe fine, but no party seems ready to have their mind changed.