User talk:Guyonthesubway/Archive

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxyhydrogen

What merits inclusion on wikipedia is the fact that some guy claims to have made a new process, and a new gas - and that it has been covered in the news. Personally, I don't think that wikipedia gives Aquygen any credibility by labeling it as a scam. I think the information should stay in the article because its interesting, relevant, and verifiable. Also, it was exactly what I was looking for when I found that page. Without that note, I would have not caught on that Klein's alleged invention is nothing novel at all. Thanks for leaving me a message. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Meyer

hey hello, Meyer had a patent under 101, that means he could only have demonstrated a working model to the patent office. Then there is Meyers work that was classified under the national security act. Witnesses in a court room cant over rule those 2 facts. Meyer was absolutely forced to pay back the 25 000 to the 2 investors. But he had hundreds of investors! A patent clerk has to keep track of what happens in all industries. And the imaginary claims related to those topics. Einstein was such a person. A court witness is something WAY inferior from a scientific perspective. It doesn't qualify as peer review but assuming those people are incompetent is also original research.

If you want to know,

Stanley Meyer's brother is still developing the technology.

Sadly enough it's not material that can be added to wikipeidia. ... There are also Meyer reproductions on youtube. Thats not wiki worthy either.... I cant explain why it works because that would be original research.... hahaha....

I'm just mentioning this in case you want to know. Trust me a court is not peer review journal, a court can claim things but they cant prove anything other then fraud. This is why he was convicted of fraud, courts convict people of fraud. It's not an institute of science. There aren't even transcripts or court recordings. The judge had the recorder switched off in advance. Not keeping records is technically the biggest fraud possible in a court of law. It's a very interesting topic there are lots of "Meyer's" out there. (figure of speech)

thanks,

Gdewilde (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With nothing to back up what you say but your say so, this material isnt interesting. Not even a little.Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]