**UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy reading members and guests,

As you all can see in every one of Rosemary's reply's the immediate responses to other members postings, 99% of the time quick attacks or misrepresentations and allegations of everyone else's imagined wrong doing. One of Rosemary's recent posted comments http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262511#msg262511 even includes content from part of a unanswered "item 4)" quote originally posted by me.

Even though Rosemary has obviously read my Reply #91 on October 30, 2010 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262460#msg262460  even before her Posted Replys of #95, #96, #97, #99, #100 and #103 to other members, it only stands to reason without a response of any kind a quick attack, misrepresentation or allegation somehow defending her "OWN QUOTED WORDS" from a Energetic Forum post #551 http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html  on July 13, 2009

ITEM NUMBER ONE

WORKING COMPLETE "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES WITHHELD FROM OPEN SOURCE

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html ( July, 13 2009 )

I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities.

Why were the October 2002 Quantum COP>17 experimental devices knowing and willfully hidden from the Open Source Community after July, 13 2009 ??

1) It's not a COP>17
2) It's being hidden because of "errors" in the Quantum article electronic diagram, electrical calculations and recorded data
3) It's being hidden because of Intellectual Property Rights of Rosemary Ainslie, Investors or others involved in South Africa
4) It's being hidden because of a requirement for a 100% "Independent" verification of any experimental device close to the self authored October 2002 Quantum article context or content for a self serving Academic thesis paper
5) Secret hidden alternative motives
6) ??

TAKE YOUR PICK - 1 through 6 ( or all )

Some would try to lead you in belief of destroying, dismantling or even loosing a incredible device that is a COP>17 ..... who in their right mind would do something a stupid as this,  especially anytime "AFTER" the date of July 13, 2009 of the Open Source posting ....

That in fact the listed items 1) through 5) must be entirely " CORRECT ", and Rosemary Ainslie has been Withholding a "Complete WORKING "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES" knowing and willfully has hidden it from the Open Source Community after July, 13 2009

I also will add as per Rosemary Ainslie's Quote .... it has been checked by EE's even at universities http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html   ( July, 13 2009 ) ....

And why after fourteen days or two weeks of possession of the new oscilloscope not one scope wave form image or test data file has been publicly released yet of "anything" related to the experimental device "nothing" at all ??

[poynt99]

The ONLY people that I know who have already declared their ability to hack into computers is Glen - and Poynty.  BOTH by their own admission.

Rose, evidently you have me confused with someone else. I do not have this ability, nor have I ever stated that I have.

.99

[WilbyInebriated]

...and a view even supported by forum members like Wilby.

harvey this is just more of your usual hyperbole and or logical fallacy. please support this with a quote of where i have said electrons don't exist. in point of fact, i have never had the audacity (although you have) to say 'what' an electron is... i have however, asked you if you have ever seen an electron, to which you replied yes. i have asked if you (and others) if you were suggesting that they (electrons) were discrete particles, but i have never claimed they don't exist. this is a pure fabrication on your part and i expect you to provide evidence or withdraw your statement.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Wilby - Nor have I stated that electron's don't exist.   Indeed I go to some considerable trouble to prove that they do.  But you must forgive him this latest example of the harvey waffle and bear in mind that this is the same man who seriously proposes that a switching circuit generates positrons in abundance.  LOL.

Fortunately his opinion on my thesis is not shared that widely and certainly NOT by accredited and, in some cases, some really well known physicists.  So.  I can live with his sad little comments.  The truth is that he's got away with bluff and blunder - related to his 'alleged' expertise - for so long now that he also assumes that the whole world is that STUPID. 

I wonder if he'll ever get around to addressing your riposte related to the Big Bang Theory.  LOL. And, for sheer amusement - look up his comments on EF.com where he presumes to talk about electric current flow.  With that much 'mess' it's no wonder he finds my own writing a mess.  I suspect it stirred up those innate confusions that float around in what is loosely referred to as 'his mind'.  LOL.

Fortunately physics theories are not something that can be opined about.  They're either on the money or they're wrong.  So.  Let history be the judge.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

EDITED - I took out the following analogy 'like scum on my fish pond' - relating to Harvey's manifest confusions relating to my own thesis in particular and to physics theories in general.  That 'scum' is required as it all helps to add oxygen to the water.  Not strictly appropriate therefore.  The mess in his own mind hardly benefits anything at all.  I rather think that his own ideas are also better described as 'a mess'.  Which effectively means that we are enjoying a unique co-inicidence of thought - otherwise entirely lacking.  LOL.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose, evidently you have me confused with someone else. I do not have this ability, nor have I ever stated that I have.

.99

Hi Poynty Point.  I dip into OUR on occassion and saw a 'chat' reference between you and Peterae that referred to what you could or would do related to a member here.  But if I read wrong - then forgive me.  And if I did not read wrong - forgive me.  I actually don't think I had the right to reference it at all even if I simply imagined it.  Not a happy association to be compared to some dedicated scoundrels.  I should have known better.  And I certainly do NOT think you're a scoundrel. On the contrary.

Kindest regards
Rosie