I should hope I have the authority to decide what I do. Anyone else’s trust doesn’t come into that. And I’ve given you some of the reasons for my decision. Please read the post again if you’ve somehow missed them, and want to give scrutiny to their logical, or other, merits.
What do you hope to accomplish with this discussion?
For example this one: Kite Networks - #44
I don’t think it’s a good idea to meddle with old threads, even with good intentions. Let’s just move on.
Just because the word “autority” was mentioned, doesn’t mean, that one can jump to “argument by authority fallacy”.
He does not claim that. Please don’t misinterpret people like that.
Are you for or against arguing by authority now?
Normally one does not have to appeal to authority at all. Your arguments against @Windy_Skies anonymity would only make sense, if he would constantly claim ~" This is true, because I say so and I am known to be right about things like that."
For example a case where applealing to authority makes sense is: “Roland S., whom we all know to be an expert in the field thinks this approach is good, therefore it is very likely to be good”.
Windy Skies, I only hope to not be moderated by you as long as you hide your identity. Can I support my position? Search on Open Peer Review for third-party support. I support strong Open standards, including identities. There is also the historical record that historians defend.
Luke, I am not the one “derailing” a topic if you are the one ending it.
I have reviewed Kite Networks topic, which I created rather than derailed. It was not even derailed. The same topic popped up in MAWES form, then split by moderators. Kite Networks remains a key topic in AWE with a lot left to share.
Its true that science at the highest abstractional level depends on the authority of the scientific record. That’s a higher standard than trusting Windy Skies’s motivation for secrecy.
Actually, I have not yet found Roland to be very expert in AWE, except within his circle only. I accept his authority to report his work.
Can you support your position? My decision to remain private is my own. It doesn’t impact you, except positively.
Or rather:
Now that makes sense.
Sidenote:
To me your identity, @kitefreak is just as hidden as @Windy_Skies.
I only know you by what you post on the forum. And for me that’s enough.
Luke, I am David Santos, CTO of kPower. Now you know.
Who is Windy Skies?
Ok. Having another name for someone doesn’t make a difference.
You can think of @Windy_Skies as [redacted name], if that makes you more comfortable.
Not if you made the name up. I searched and got-
Are you trying to doxx me? I’d have to check the legality of that.
No, just don’t “moderate” me as you have unless you are identified. I am especially curious about your AWE efforts that you have mentioned. I not aware to have doxed anyone who does not show in search. Could you dox yourself, please? That’s been my request, to know who is moderating me as you have?
You just did though. And to keep the discussion on topic, I’ll repeat this:
I have been impacted only negatively. Now you are accusing me of revealing your identity? That has not happened. Just please stop moderating me as you do, unless you voluntarily prove your merits in real life. Thanks.
I’m usually careful about my word choice. I said you tried to doxx me, not that you have.
You still have not supported your position. I have given you reasons why my privacy benefits you. What do you think are reasons why it harms you?
If that was your real name, it was Luke that Doxed.
The deep harm is that, like most traditional Texans and Mexicans, I was raised to despise willfully-deceptive characters as “snakes-in-the-grass”. This is one of our deepest values.
I have no evidence of a provable motive on your part. Maybe you have a great motive, or maybe you are hiding something shameful. like the wasting of public AWE R&D funds.
Its progressively stressful not to know, especially as you seem intent on continued moderation claiming some unprovable benefit. I need to know who you are to comply with you. Luke can just undo anything you try to impose on him, so of course he is less concerned.
You can always come to me, if you feel that you feel mistreated. We’ll have a vote among moderators on the specific action then.
You’re really “complaining on a high level”, as we say in germany. Your account has not been deleted, you have not been suspended, none of your posts have been deleted and you’ve always had the chance to talk about your side of things.
Go ahead and delete my account if you think that’s best. My concerns remain unsolved.
Thanks for everyone doing the best they can from whatever cultural background formed them.
You already know me through my writing. Say you know I’m really a guy or girl in Kenya or Mongolia or wherever. That tells you much less than what I am free to share here already because of my privacy.
I can also just tell you my motive, or hope: a world with a climate and nature that resembles that before the arrival of modern man, and man spread out among the universe. I wouldn’t tell you that if I were not anonymous. I wouldn’t even be active on here if I weren’t anonymous.
I have, sadly, not received any funding for my work yet, public or private.
As for your distrust, read up on thinking on privacy to dispel some or all of that.
Well you won’t succeed in your goal by “moderating” me as you have, especially as an anonymous agent. It would be more to the point to review your past AWE engineering efforts and build on that.
We all know privacy is broken for regular people, but science advances on public knowledge. What are you adding to public AWE science that is not anonymous moderation?
I must go now, and will be off-forum for a while. You’ all get your sleep.
I’ve worked in communications from super high speed to super basic. This ordered process is bliss.
Speed of knowledge gain is massively impaired by noise on the yahoo forum.
Chat like this topic is a distraction from actual AWES process.
Imagine a radio system where we all had to listen to all of the chat amongst all organisation staff.
And to join in you had to review all of the old chat (and check for copies of that chat tagged on the bottom of each chat ) before being able to contribute that you wished to offer a fellow mechanic a biscuit or raise an emergency. Madness.
This ordered reasoning process is a huge relief because I care about AWES and hope to engage as many humans as possible in the development.