Dave, you made censorship on your old forum. I am not the only one to have noted this. In the same time you regularly produce accusations without proof that deserve to be moderated. You also regularly deform interlocutor’s words. You have no lesson to give about what is fair.
Pierre, I have never once moderated the Old Forum, and the only true way to censor posting is by Moderator action. There is no censored content to prove your accusation of me. If you knew of any, you would copy it here as proof.
Who else do you imply can fairly claim censorship by me, by any example? What have you ever written that I would even bother to censor? Its always been enough to just answer your posts patiently.
What we can agree upon is the willful systematic self-censorship of the AWEC circle, in not sharing their deliberations that affect us all, under the pretext of venture-ethics. I don’t do that.
If you want dramatic reminders of AWE venture secrecy that did not turn out well, it would help newcomers learn our colorful community history.
Again, try and prove secrecy is helpful to AWE, rather than mostly hiding poor performance from stakeholders who deserve better.
You seem to be saying you also deserve a secret moderator. No one does.
I don’t know how this is applicable here. What is the thesis and what is the antithesis?
The topic is not about soft kites though. And it is not a kiteplane vs soft kite topic.
The podcast shares how Rutan solved some problems: landing on rough surfaces, in-flight battery charging, salt water resistance, and some others. If one is interested in that, watch the video, if not, don’t. If someone wants to discuss his solutions, or conditions that necessitated those solutions, they can feel free to comment. If one doesn’t want to talk about that, there are plenty of other topics one can comment on.
This shouldn’t be so difficult.
Thesis: “similarities” (your word)
Antithesis: “dis-similarities” (Dave’s word).
This opposition could be evoked as a secondary (I mentioned “secondarily” term) feature, taking place in thesis/antithesis construction, considering Dave’s opinion about the soft kites as the only workable AWES.
I don’t see this as fruitful. Please tell me all the ways an orange is similar to a table and how it is dissimilar. Next, please tell me how a hairpin is similar to a bowling ball and how it is dissimilar. Sure, it is a way to brainstorm, but it is off-topic in the original topic.
I also don’t think those fit Hegel’s philosophy. A thesis could be: love is everything, an antithesis: love is nothing, a synthesis: love is something.
The thesis and antithesis need to be talking about the same thing, which these similarities and dissimilarities don’t do.
On topic thesis: Rutan’s solution to landing on rough surfaces is good, and here’s why. On topic antithesis: Rutan solution to landing on rough surfaces is bad, and here’s why.
This is only an example of similarity/dis-similarity, the full topic being not “Rutan’s solution to landing on rough surfaces is good, and here’s why” but Burt Rutan talking about designing his SkiGull seaplane.
And on PSA: a seaplane is probably not a viable AWES as dis-similarity (antithesis) Dave mentions Rutan’s seaplane features:
So he wrote about Rutan’s seaplane which is the heart of the topic. So this is on-topic.
For PSA: a seaplane is probably not a viable AWES to be a good antithesis, the original thesis would have to be something like a seaplane is a good AWES. It was not, so it is not.
Dave mentioned something trivially true about it. I could have written something trivially true about it as well, like a seaplane does not make a good SSTO rocket or a seaplane does not make a good orange. We’re not talking about AWES or SSTO rockets or oranges though. Rutan is talking about specific solutions to specific problems.
I am not convinced by this reasoning.
The topic is:
- The title “PSA: a seaplane is probably not a viable AWES” was not given by Dave.
- Thesis/antithesis concern contents, and there are several possible antitheses.
The topic is about Rutan’s seaplane. Dave wrote about Rutan’s seaplane. So this is on-topic.
The forum is about AWES.
Solutions for AWES.
Pierre is right, these are not “trivially true”, but vitally true technical points-
(Rutan seaplane) unsuited as a WECS kite due to its high-capital cost, high stall-speed, low unit-power, high-mass, high wing-loading, IC engine, passenger systems, and so on.
If Windy Skies thinks his Rutan seaplane topic cannot be related to AWE here, she or he’s in the wrong place.
Windy Skies’ concerns with domain acronyms, “weasel words”, topic-policing, and so on are not even “trivially true”, because no consensus exists. He or she should not retain Moderator status under a secret identity with such personal biases. She or he is not a great judge of technical relevance either, casting for poor models like Rutan’s seaplane, then claiming brainstorming rules (with the likely result of limiting new ideas, as research suggests).
Its just not working. How do we stop Windy Skies from controlling our written contributions from behind a creepy mask of anonymity?
Unable to form a new topic on Tomas Neemann in Homebrew. Did someone set a restriction?
Also the Rutan Topic is locked. “Moderation” seems unresponsive to complaints, except to make things worse.
Windy Skies is now unlisting topics that circle back on his appeal to his own anonymous authority-
5 months later
According to the Wikipedia introduction at top of this page, “Weasel” refers to “anonymous authority”.
The only true “anonymous authority” on this Forum is moderator Windy Skies, who demands anonymity in enforcing wrongful authority over posting.
All other instances are helpfully clarified upon demand.
1 Reply
Reply
I’ll (temporarily) unlist this topic. I don’t like the casual reader to see too much meta stuff.
kitefreak:
anonymous authority
Read the article and this topic again to better understand the context and concept. It’s an appeal to anonymous authority that is the problem.
Reply
unlisted 12 mins ago
You are appealing to your own anonymous authority, the most hypocritical possible situation.
Now you are hiding your diagnostic weasel topic, and everyone’s writing on the subject.
I do not recall a single human regret on your part for the upset caused by you controlling others from anonymous authority.
Implying that anyone else is the weasel because they do not provide a source fast enough is not the problem with anonymous authority here.
===============
Still not seeing new Tomas Neemann topic posted to Homebrew. The guy deserves attention.
Is his topic moderation-blocked? lost?
Your post was rejected, not by me. See the category description:
This topic wasn’t about something you are working on so this is not the right category for it. I personally also take issue with the content of the post. I think that person would be right to dismayed to be so described by you, and you’d need to give evidence for your accusations against “playboys”
The post, for reference:
Please resubmit in a better category, like System Design, and edit out the superfluous stuff.
Compared to Tomas and his struggle to develop AWE, there really are a lot of “EU playboys” spending millions with far less innate talent.
I know many of these figures personally, and the precise playboy lifestyle they cultivate. What then IS an EU playboy? Tomas is the opposite of that. I did not dox anyone as a specific playboy.
Note that Makani’s founding circle also represented the playboy lifestyle, to an even more extreme degree. Lots of money, toys, lavish PR, business entertainment, etc. The non-playboys are the shop-rats and savants.
No, I can’t in good conscience repost on the whim of an anonymous authority. Tomas is a superior Homebrew topic.
@Tom restricted posting in the category. The rule there is, you can only post about your own work.
It’s also in your best interest to keep the topic simple, something like:
Makes it easier to just focus on what he is doing, and doesn’t invite arguing about what “playboys” are doing. If you want to talk about playboys, another topic, one not about honoring Tomas, would be better suited.
Well Luke should not have created that rule, since it prevents sharing third-party homebrew as such. I won’t be posting my own homebrew under such an odd rule.
AWE Tarzan vs AWE Playboy is a terrific take, if only it was not censored.
Can we agree on the original definition of Playboy, in the sense of “a boy actor”, as well as “a wealthy man who spends his time enjoying himself”. There are several prominent cases in AWE that have attracted lavish reportage. NeeMann; nothing, not even here.
ORIGIN
early 17th century (in the sense ‘boy actor’): from play + boy. The current sense originated in the early 19th century in Irish English.
Powered by [Oxford Dictionaries]
I moved this post:
As it off-topic in the original topic. That topic is about:
Windy Skies,
Burt Rutan’s seaplane is a poor choice of AWE topic if you think seaplanes as a class are a-priori “probably not viable”. That’s your language that you allow to remain on the Rutan Topic, in the guise of topic “Moderation”. You don’t allow the Albatross-as-AWES-seaplane to remain in place.
You have not honestly answered the complaint about your anonymous authority mucking up topics. According to WP, your anonymous opinions are weasel words, unless properly attributed.
Trying to repair anonymous censorship-
I moved this post:
PSA: a seaplane is probably not a viable AWES Lounge
Its a dubious hypothesis that “a seaplane is probably not a viable AWES”. After all the Albatross is a biological seaplane powered by AWE. Its a safer claim that Burt Rutan’s seaplane is specifically unsuited as an AWES model.
As it off-topic in the original topic. That topic is about:
Burt Rutan talking about designing his SkiGull seaplane
This is an invitation to listen to the podcast and perhaps learn something, and perhaps discuss similarities in requirements and solutions.