But see May 2014 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x43g.pdf

Background roughage for those who find it hard to believe that the British Library interprets its Mission as one of Censorship. IC 17feb01

----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
To: Inglis, David <David.Inglis@bl.uk>; Gerry Wolff
<gerry@sees.bangor.ac.uk>
Cc: Anatol Holt <aholt@est.ips.pt>; mikegi <mikegi@prestige.net>;
<theotheocharis@ic4life.net>; Malcolm Davidson
<malcolm_davidson@sonymusic.com>; <dave@dunelmsystems.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Permaweb


> Touche
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Inglis, David <David.Inglis@bl.uk>
> To: 'Ivor Catt' <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>; Gerry Wolff
> <gerry@sees.bangor.ac.uk>
> Cc: Inglis, David <David.Inglis@bl.uk>; Anatol Holt <aholt@est.ips.pt>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 3:23 PM
> Subject: RE: Permaweb
>
>
> > Ivor/Gerry: I am too hard pressed to respond to this debate or to
> > interpretations of my statements but I wish you well.
> >
> > David [Inglis, BL]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ivor Catt [mailto:ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk]
> > Sent: 14 February 2001 12:50
> > To: Gerry Wolff
> > Cc: Inglis, David; Anatol Holt
> > Subject: Re: Permaweb
> >
> >
> >
> > re your quote;
> > "I suppose this was what Thomas Kuhn
> > was writing about in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions (I think
> that's
> > the title)." - I phoned Kuhn (now dead), and I frequently quote
> > Kuhn. I heard him lecture in London. Ivor Catt
> >
> > "But I think there are also more benign factors at work:
> > * Radical ideas are often intrinsically difficult to evaluate simply
> because
> > they are radical. Given that it is often difficult to distinguish good
> > radical ideas from bad, cranky ones, it is natural that referees tend to
> be
> > cautious in what they will accept." - This is superficial. I
> have
> > researched this matter heavily, and identified the particular sentence
> which
> > will receive 100% rejection. While it is true that in order to survive
in
> a
> > sub-culture, a salaried Knowledge Broker must make sure to fail to
> > comprehend certain matters which would lead to his exclusion from that
> > sub-group, and from its patronage, this cannot merely be attributed to
> > failure of comprehension. I have shown that the drive is one of will to
> > survive, not of failure of comprehension, which, in extremis, is
exploited
> > in order to survive. A knowledge broker is meticulous
> > in ensuring that he fails to comprehend heresy. He fails to comprehend
in
> > order that he may survive. See my quote from "1984" at the top of my
> > article "The Clever take the Brilliant", on my website at
> > http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/Y65BRILL.htm ; ""Crimestop means
> the
> > faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of
any
> > dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of
> > failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest
> > arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled
> by
> > any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical
direction.
> > Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." (This version of his
> > Introduction was rejected for publication until the 1984 edition.)
> > - G. Orwell, "1984", pub. Chancellor, 1984 edn., p225" (Inglis's last
> email
> > clearly told us that he is avoiding danger by "being bored or repelled
by
> > any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical
> direction."
> > His mortgage payments are more important than making British Library
> useful
> > for society. I quote; "Not to prolong the discussion or broadening it
into
> a
> > discussion of censorship, let me just add that the Library along with
> other
> > national ....". The idea of making a career in the communication
industry,
> > but outlawing censorship from one's Universe of Discourse, is delicious.
> He
> > is most definitely not alone.)
> > I claim that you either have to dismiss the Orwell quote as nonsense, or
> you
> > have to modify your statement "Radical ideas are often intrinsically
> > difficult to evaluate simply because
> > they are radical. Given that it is often difficult to distinguish good
> > radical ideas from bad, cranky ones, it is natural that referees tend to
> be
> > cautious in what they will accept." You and Orwell are
> > incompatible. *****Please reply to this point.***** Ivor Catt
> > Also see;
> > http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ALP.htm
> > Also see;
> > http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/th26hcat.htm (By the way,
"The
> > Clever take the Brilliant"
> > is itself a good example of information which will always receive 100%
> > rejection by referees, although it is quite easy to understand.*** Thus,
> the
> > article itself (which I only thought of because of the George Orwell
> quote)
> > disproves your thesis. The reality is, that we live in a medaeval
society,
> > and you and everybody else know quite accurately, within each
subculture,
> > what are thoughts, and also what is knowledge, the ownership of which
> would
> > result in your exclusion from that sub-culture, and from its patronage.
> This
> > leads me to the fact that both Chomsky, and also a London journalist
(the
> > latter to me by word of mouth) asserted that in order to publish, one
must
> > not only pretend to PC opinions; one must also internalise them.
> >
> > *** More acurately, the article "Clever take the brilliant" is a
"Category
> > 3" article.
> >
> > Category 1. Receipt acknowledged by editor, article accepted for
> > publication.
> > Category 2. Receipt acknowledged; article rejected for publication.
> > Category 3. Editor refuses to acknowledge that he received article.
> > Category 4. Editor insists that he has never heard of the author, or
read
> > any of his writings.
> >
> > re your quote;
> > "* Many ideas take time to develop. My initial proposals (in 1988) that
> > computing might be understood as information compression look pretty
crude
> > and unsophisticated compared with the framework I have developed now."
> > My statement "A capacitor is a transmission line" has remained exactly
the
> > same for 30 years. It is not being honed, or improved. It remains
totally
> > censored out. (More accurately, it is probably only censored out if the
> same
> > article mentions "Displacent Current". That brings home its
implications.)
> > Similarly, see "The Diagonal",
> > http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/z033.htm
> > Editors and referees have for 30 years known very well what they were
> doing.
> > The problem, as they know full well, is that the way the capacitor is
> > treated in electromagnetic theory is incompatible with the way the
> > transmission line is treated in electromagnetic theory. They know that,
> and
> > they know they will not survive if they adhere to the Kuhnian model for
> > scientific advance. They are right. If an editor or professor attempted
to
> > do so, he would immediately be out on his ear, as was Herbert Dingle.
The
> > Kuhnian (and similarly the Popperian) model is of progress by way of
> > destruction; "It is hard to see how new theories could arise without
these
> > destructive changes in beliefs about nature." - Kuhn, p97.
> >
> > again re your quote;
> > "I am sympathetic to the problems you have had with publication: I have
> had
> > similar problems myself (although not so extreme)"
> > This is typical of the attempt to avoid the reality, that our society is
> > medaeval, not modern. The problem is, not the blocking of my new
> > information. Far from a problem, what I have found is gold; diamonds; a
> > jewel of great price. I have proved that the Enlightenment is over. That
> is
> > a much more important discovery than my breakthroughs in electromagnetic
> > theory, and you should not use my e-m to run away from my major advance;
> the
> > discovery that the Enlightenment is over, and we are now in a medaeval
> world
> > driven by fear of heresy. You are fearful, and so is Inglis.
> > Ivor Carr 14feb01
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gerry Wolff <gerry@sees.bangor.ac.uk>
> > To: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 5:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: Permaw
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your message and thoughts about censorship etc. I am in the
> > process of reading relevant pages on your website - which are very
> > interesting.
> >
> > I am sympathetic to the problems you have had with publication: I have
had
> > similar problems myself (although not so extreme) in trying to get over
> the
> > idea that `computing' might be understood as information compression. I
> > think you are probably right that there can be an element of
`censorship'
> by
> > people who don't want their boat rocked. I suppose this was what Thomas
> Kuhn
> > was writing about in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions (I think
> that's
> > the title).
> >
> > But I think there are also more benign factors at work:
> >
> > * Radical ideas are often intrinsically difficult to evaluate simply
> because
> > they are radical. Given that it is often difficult to distinguish good
> > radical ideas from bad, cranky ones, it is natural that referees tend to
> be
> > cautious in what they will accept.
> >
> > * Many ideas take time to develop. My initial proposals (in 1988) that
> > computing might be understood as information compression look pretty
crude
> > and unsophisticated compared with the framework I have developed now.
> > Referees and journal editors should recognise that good ideas may take
> time
> > to refine and develop and be prepared to accept articles about the early
> > stages of this development as well as what may come out of the later
> stages.
> >
> > Re Permaweb, voluntary archive etc, I am working on the assumption that
> > there may be arguments that people like David Inglis may accept, even if
> > they remain wedded to the `censorship' model. When I get time, I hope to
> > refine my original proposals in the light of reactions to date and,
> perhaps,
> > try again.
> >
> > Best wishes and regards,
> >
> > Gerry Wolff
> >
> > Dr J G Wolff, School of Informatics, University of Wales, Dean Street,
> > Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 1UT, UK. Tel: +44 1248 382691. Fax: +44 1248
361429.
> > Email: gerry@sees.bangor.ac.uk. Web: www.sees.bangor.ac.uk/~gerry/.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ivor Catt" <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
> > To: "Inglis, David" <David.Inglis@bl.uk>; "Gerry Wolff"
> > <gerry@sees.bangor.ac.uk>
> > Cc: "Inglis, David" <David.Inglis@bl.uk>
> > Sent: 10 February 2001 14:27
> > Subject: Re: Permaw
> >
> >
> > > By definition, David Inglis will not know about the censorship
problem.
> > His
> > > survival requires that he not know about it.
> > > Attempt to educate him will run into the 'paranoia' rationalisation,
or
> > > certain other rationalisations. Thus, the twentieth century was lost
to
> > > science.
> > > (My computer invention, which attracted 16 millions in investment
> > > (including UK Govt money) 15 years later, was totally suppressed. My
e-m
> > > theory, totally suppressed by the IEE, was published by them in part
> after
> > a
> > > delay of 30 years, in 1998. A BL "Digital Project" head has to not
> absorb
> > > the significance of these events, in order to survive. His loyalty is
to
> > > those who delayed publication, and he believes that they are his
> > paymasters.
> > > I think he is right; that society will pay handsomely to delay, or
even
> to
> > > suppress, heresy.)
> > > www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/
> > > So be it.
> > > Ivor Catt 10feb01.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Inglis, David <David.Inglis@bl.uk>
> > > To: 'Ivor Catt' <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>; Gerry Wolff
> > > <gerry@sees.bangor.ac.uk>
> > > Cc: Inglis, David <David.Inglis@bl.uk>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 1:16 PM
> > > Subject: RE: Permaw
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear Dr Wolff: I did intend letting you know that I had mentioned
your
> > > > interest in the archival area to Ivor Catt when we met two days back
> and
> >
> > > had
> > > > encouraged him to contact you.
> > > >
> > > > Not to prolong the discussion or broadening it into a discussion of
> > > > censorship, let me just add that the Library along with other
national

……………………………………………………………………..


----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
To: Gerry Wolff <gerry@sees.bangor.ac.uk>
Cc: Inglis, David <David.Inglis@bl.uk>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Permaweb


> Nice final touch from a survivor;
> Touche
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Inglis, David <David.Inglis@bl.uk>
> To: 'Ivor Catt' <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>; Gerry Wolff
> <gerry@sees.bangor.ac.uk>
> Cc: Inglis, David <David.Inglis@bl.uk>; Anatol Holt <aholt@est.ips.pt>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 3:23 PM
> Subject: RE: Permaweb
>
>
> > Ivor/Gerry: I am too hard pressed to respond to this debate or to
> > interpretations of my statements but I wish you well.
> >
> > David [Inglis, British Library Digital Project.] [Note that Inglis
put
> Catt with touch with Wolff, and now finds that Wolff and Catt have
identical
> concerns - nothing to do with Animal Rights.]
>
............................................................................
>
............................................................................
> ...........................
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerry Wolff <gerry@sees.bangor.ac.uk>
> To: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 11:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Permaweb
>
>
> > > I phoned Kuhn (now dead), and I frequently quote
> > > Kuhn. I heard him lecture in London. Ivor Catt
> >
> > That's nice to have heard him lecture. I feel a bit like that about
having
> > heard and seen Jacqueline de Pre play (in a live concert) three years
> before
> > she contracted multiple sclerosis.
> >
> > ""Crimestop means the
> > > faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of
> any
> > > dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of
> > > failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest
> > > arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or
repelled
> > by
> > > any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical
> direction.
> > > Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." - (This version of
his
> > Introduction was rejected for publication until the 1984 edition.)
> > - G. Orwell, "1984", pub. Chancellor, 1984 edn., p225"
> > ...
> > > I claim that you either have to dismiss the Orwell quote as nonsense,
or
> > you
> > > have to modify your statement "Radical ideas are often intrinsically
> > > difficult to evaluate simply because
> > > they are radical. Given that it is often difficult to distinguish good
> > > radical ideas from bad, cranky ones, it is natural that referees tend
to
> > be
> > > cautious in what they will accept." You and Orwell are
> > > incompatible. *****Please reply to this point.***** Ivor Catt
> >
> > How can one distinguish 'protective stupidity' from failure to
understand
> > arising from the intrinsic difficulty of radical new ideas? It could be
> that
> > both kinds of cases arise but there is no easy way to distinguish them.
> #########Answer. I gave you the example which proves the point. The
> statement "A capacitor is a transmission line" is understood by any
lecturer
> or text book writer in electromagnetic theory, but they refuse to admit
that
> they comprehend it. This remains true today, so you can test the assertion
> with your local friendly lecturer in electromagnetic theory.
> Why is it so important to you to believe that a college lecturer is not
> interested in his survival? Do you insist that a college lecturer is a
> lemming, each and every one? Why evade logic when considering the Politics
> of Knowledge?
> >
> > How is it that some 'heritical' ideas do, eventually get accepted? How
did
> > Wegener's idea of continental drift eventually reach the mainstream (as
> > plate techtonics, after 30 years)? If Orwell were entirely right, this
> > should never happen.
> Wegener took more than 50 years. I interviewed Runcorn, one of the two men
> who got
> the credit later on, 50 years later. One theory is that there is a window
> every 50 years when a new idea can
> enter the mainstream. The man who gave the paper/lecture, himself a
> statistician, said that statistics had the same periodicity, but the entry
> point for a new idea in stats was out of phase from all other subjects by
25
> years. By the way, the rogue Runcorn, one of the two who got credit, when
he
> talked to me for 2
> hours, always called it "contionental drift", never "plate tectonics". I
> found that odd. He was murdered - beaten to death in San Diego - not long
> afterwards, and I hope that I have an alibi. I phoned Lipshutz, who died
> recently (jan01), to ask him why Establishment figures continued to defend
> the corrupt system (of blocking new info coming from the wrong source -
not
> from their coterie), and he replied "They're all crooks". (Search for
> "Sokal" on my websaite for a barefaced example.) If we look at the
behaviour
> of Andrew Huxley, see my website, we begin to see that a Nobel Prize is
the
> final accolade for not rocking the boat; for avoiding controversy. Compare
> this with Kuhn or Popper or Polanyi, with their emphasis on controversy
and
> discord as central to scientific advance. Huxley, ex Master of Trinity
> Cambridge, ex President Royal Society, half a Nobel Prize, spoke to me
> bitterly about suppression (see my website), but has no idea that such as
he
> has responsibilities in the matter; see his correspondence with me. We
will
> find, on studying the rules of behaviour for the President of the Royal
> Society (or the Master of Trinity, or a Nobel Prizewinner), that the
office
> holder (or emeritus office holder) is never told that he has a duty to
keep
> science on the rails. Huxley and the rest just sit on their (half) Nobel
> £100,000 and purr in front of awed journalists and acolytes. I promised
> Denis Bailey of Dublin that, after we met Hux in around june00 (see my
> website), I would be nice to Hux for 12 months, so I must stop here.
> Worrying, because he's 83. I don't like to attack dead men. Wolff is
> aberrant, because as a general rule, even when the patronage is over,
> Knowledge Brokers still support the system of suppression of new
> information. Wolff, early retired, expresses concern. (However, note that
> Hux did so to me, but all the same he will help to block any new
> information.)
> [The word "new" is a technical term, its meaning carefully discussed in my
> book "The Catt Anomaly".]
> Kuhn has a thorough analysis of why and when a new idea enters the
> mainstream. I think his analysis is reasonable. My e-m theory will die
with
> me because the necessary crisis in the subject does not exist. Kuhn says
> there has to be a crisis.
> >
> > How could one arrange things so that there is a positive incentive for
> > professionals to recognise radical new ideas, or, at least, how could
one
> > reduce the current disincentives? At present, most academics are under
> > tremendous pressure to 'publish or perish' and it is so much easier to
go
> > along familiar grooves. Likewise, it is much easier to referee something
> in
> > a familiar mould rather than tackle something radical. Einstein
complained
> > about scientists who look for the thinnest part of a board and then
drill
> > lots of holes through at that point - instead of doing something more
> > adventurous. But the powers-that-be have set things up in such a way
that
> > there are severe penalties for sticking one's neck out.
> My book "The Catt Anomaly" discusses this problem, and says that the
answer
> is "Accountability". At present, if a knowledge broker blocks "new"
> information, he gains from his obstruction. There is a search engine on my
> website, so you can search for this string;
> [The term "new" is defined at length] "The remedy is simple - to introduce
> accountability. I fear that at present a knowledge broker in rewarded for
> blocking new information.
> A necessary reform will be that should a knowledge broker be proved to
have
> blocked new information, he will be dismissed."
> I would be happy to start by dismissing a knowledge broker who blocked an
> item of "new" information for more than five years. We could tighten up on
> the time limit. Generally, my stuff has been blocked for a third of a
> century.
> >
> > It is not just in science that good new things get overlooked. The
> > best-selling book "Watership Down" was sent to about 30 publishers
before
> > being accepted. I believe "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
went
> > to over 100 publishers before getting accepted. Presumably this kind of
> > thing happens because of the commercial risk of taking something on that
> > turns out to be a flop. Perhaps publishers need to learn from the film
> > industry where, I have heard, 9 out of 10 films lose money. The people
who
> > finance films have, presumably, learned how to make their money from the
1
> > out of 10 films that do make money.
> Flopsy Bunnies and the rest were refused by all publishers. The author
> published privately. Now, her books are, as I remember, the subject of a
> £100 million p.a. industry.
> > >
> > > again re your quote;
> > > "I am sympathetic to the problems you have had with publication: I
have
> > had
> > > similar problems myself (although not so extreme)"
> > > This is typical of the attempt to avoid the reality, that our society
is
> > > medaeval, not modern. The problem is, not the blocking of my new
> > > information. Far from a problem, thanks to my advances in e-m theory,
> what I have found is gold; diamonds; a
> > > jewel of great price. I have proved that the Enlightenment is over.
That
> > is
> > > a much more important discovery than my breakthroughs in
electromagnetic
> > > theory, and you should not use my e-m to run away from my major
advance;
> > the
> > > discovery that the Enlightenment is over, and we are now in a medaeval
> > world
> > > driven by fear of heresy. You are fearful, and so is
s. -Ivor
> >
> > Yes, I acknowledge that there certainly is fear of heresy. I am not too
> > fearful myself because I have taken early retirement and am largely free
> of
> > the pressures that most academics are under. But I repeat, there is a
> > pressing need to find ways of rewarding professionals for taking risks
> (and
> > for the extra effort required to evaluate radical new ideas), not for
> > playing safe.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Gerry

……………………………………………………………………….

----- Original Message -----

From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>

To: <RaeWest@littleton.prestel.co.uk>

Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 11:39 AM

Subject: Re: Permaweb denied. Heresy remains transitory.

Rae,

………………………….

To Gerry Wolff
I assume that the letter (signature missing, probably when photocopied) from
tel. 1248 382691 to David Inglis, British Library, is from Gerry Wolff.
Plase confirm this.
I had an hour with David Inglis yesterday. He told me that my proposals
parallelled those from Bangor.
He will not move, but suggested that I contact you.
Ivor Catt 01727 864257

----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
To: Inglis, David <David.Inglis@bl.uk>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 8:51 PM
Subject: Permaw


> Confidential.
> To David Inglis,
> British Library,
> 96 Euston Rd.,
> London NW1 2DB
> 0207 4127135
>
> Permaweb.
>
> After describing this some three or four times to the most senior members
of
> the British Library and the Copyright Library one and two years ago by
> letter and email, I lapsed into confidentiality, and would keep the matter
> confidential now.
>
> The concept.
> British Library allows any person to permanently endow up to 50KB of text
on
> the www for a once-over fee, perhaps £50.
> The world knows that BL is more likely to survive for a century or more,
> than any equivalent institution in the world. With its supreme credibility
> for permanence, BL might succeed in taking the whole world market for this
> product, but it has to act well in advance of the competition. LIke IBM
and
> later Microsoft, this product is likely to become the monopoly of one
> supplier.
> Start-up costs could be less than £10,000. Potential income resulting
could
> be in the £billions.
>
> Further discussion in an associated email, Permaw2.
>
> Ivor Catt 26jan01
>
…………………………

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 5:52 PM
Subject: Fw: Permaw2


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
> To: Inglis, David <David.Inglis@bl.uk>
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 10:38 PM
> Subject: Permaw2
>
>
> > Ivor Catt to David Inglis, British Library. 26jan01
> > Thank you for inviting me to visit you at 4pm on wed7feb01 at British
> > Library, 96 Euston Rd., London NW1 2DB. Afterwards, at 6.30 p.m., I
> > rehearse with the Malcolm Sargent Festival Choir near Waterloo Stn.
> > After reading the three emails dated today, Permaw, Permaw2, Permaw3,
you
> > may email me to say that a meeting is not necessary. Otherwise, I shall
> come
> > as agreed.
> > Ivor Catt
> > [your tel. no. 0207 4127135. my no. 01727 864257]
> >
> > Permaw2.
> >
> > 1 Vanity
> > Vanity publishing. I have found that nearly everyone has a psychological
> > block which prevents them from reading the autobiography written by
their
> > parent or other relative. Such documents, see for instance
> > http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/xi5what1.htm, which run towards
> the
> > billions in number round the world, tend to disappear when the author
> dies.
> > After spending perhaps a year in the writing, the author will be happy
to
> > fund its permanent survival. Vanity publishing, at a cost of perhaps
£500,
> > is less permanent and less available to potential readers than Permaw.
> >
> > 2 Paradigm blocks
> > Professionally, I ran into broadband censorship in all my fields of work
> and
> > research.
> > In response to censorship of my work in electromagnetic theory, which
> > broadband censorship has continued for thirty years, I reacted in 1978
by
> > becoming a publishing house, so that key information written by me now
> > resides in the Copyright Library. This involved cost and effort for me.
I
> > have published on censorship, see
> > http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w99anbk6.htm, and lectured on
> > censorship to the Ethical Society, Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, see
> > http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w4rlectu.htm.
> >
> > 3 Citations in learned papers
> > Donard di Cogan, lecturer at Univ. of East Anglia, told me forcefully
that
> > he told his students that when they wrote papers, they should not cite
> > sources on the www, because such sources are ephemeral. Thus, the
> resulting
> > paper's reader is directed to a cited book or journal rather than an
> easier
> > access website. A learned paper often involves the author in giving some
> > £200 to the journal publisher. Additional funding for Permaw by learned
> > authors would cause no procedural difficulties. However, the money would
> go
> > to the paper under discussion, not the papers cited. A paper in Permaw
> would
> > be much more frequently cited that one which was only in a journal.
> >
> > 4 The Lord Chancellor
> > This item raises the whole issue of open government. Lord Irvine has
> drifted
> > into suppressing websites. The temptation should be removed from him.
> > http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/zc041.htm
> > http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/01055.htm
> > However, I have no information on the precedent for Permaw, which is the
> > Copyright Library. I do not know whether an allegedly libellous book is
> > removed from the Copyright Library by order of the court, or remains as
> > evidence of the libel.
> >
> > 5 CV. Resume
> > It can be expected that many people probably to place their CV on a BL
> > confidential site which would only be accessable by a potential employer
> who
> > knew the folder address within the website. When I gave a seminar in
> Dublin,
> > I used this system, a confidential, orphan site, to advise other
> organisers
> > and lecturers on changes to the programme.
> >
> > Ivor Catt
> > 26jan01
> >
……………………………….

----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 5:53 PM
Subject: Fw: Permaw3


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
> To: <David.Inglis@bl.uk>
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 10:31 PM
> Subject: Permaw3
>
>
> > Technically, British Library probably becomes a webserver. That way, a
> > customer can upload text without effort from BL. Also, the customer can
> > alter text.
> > This brings us to the problem of whether Parmaw is a document of record,
> for
> > instance to establish priority with an invention, or can be altered at
> will
> > by the customer.
> > The preliminary conclusion is that there should be two categories of
> Permaw;
> > the inviolate, which cannot be changed, and the alterable by customer.
> >
…………………………………

----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
To: Inglis, David <David.Inglis@bl.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Permaw4


> To David Inglis,
> My friend Heinz Lipschutz (see my website home page
> www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ and search for Lipschutz) died in mid
> jan01. I only heard of his death three days ago. His executor told me he
had
> commissioned a gravestone. My wild guess is that that would be £300. I
feel
> that if he had the opportunity, the executor would have endowed a eulogy
> and/or a biography on Permaw for some 10% of my guessed at cost of the
> gravestone. This could rapidly become standard practice worldwide, in
which
> case the financial implications are enormous. Either the eulogy would be
> accessed by name, or birth date, or date of death, from the gravestone.
> Alternatively, gravestones will have the Permaw address engraved into
them.
>
> The only unfinished business seems to me to be the problem of censorship.
> However, that is subsumed under the fact that a censor such as the Lord
> Chancellor, or English Libel Court precedent, are likely to drive all of
www
> business abroad, and cause the shutting down of all webservers such as
Demon
> which are located in the UK. Thus, the government, which values the www
but
> also wants to manage the media, is at cross purposes with itself.
> Although I am a publisher and also an author, I do not know how the
> copyright library, which I regard as the precursor, or precedent, for
> Permaw, relates to libel. The ideal with me would be if a copyright
library
> book were inviolate against libel judgements, and in that case Permaw
would
> follow suit. However, I am ignorant on the key issue. (I do know, from my
> research into AIDS, I learned from its author Bryan J Ellison, that a US
> judge ordered the destruction of all copies of his 1994 book on AIDS,
> including those owned by himself. This judgement was later overrturned.)
> However, I do know that, since mirror websites abroad are easy, the Lord
> Chancellor would not only suppress parts of Permaw that he didn't like. He
> would also lose the whole of www business for the UK. I have tried without
> success to get him to comment on stories going round the www that he
> suppressed websites that he didn't like by pressuring the webserver.
>
> I have recently come across an alleged "magic circle" of corrupt
barristers,
> solicitors and judges at the top of the English Family Courts, who target
> the parties in wealthy divorces. Too hot for my website, I am negotiating
> websites abroad. It is not too easy, but will obviously get much easier as
> the www grows and develops.
>
> Permaw breaks down into two categories, ROM and RAM. ROM may never be
> altered, even by who endows it. RAM is alterable, or upgradeable. The easy
> way to start is with ROM only, and this raises the most money with the
least
> maintenance cost. However, if RAM carries a further fee for each upgrade,
it
> could be a tidy, regular earner. A compromise, or half-way house, might be
> valued. This would entail the provision of a further ROM following each
ROM
> address, where arrata could be posted. Each posting would carry a fee.
>
> After initial setting up for such as Lipschutz, it may be practicable for
a
> secret code to access the series of sites, in the same way as serves now
for
> owners of websites, and automatic credit card transfer each time a further
> "ROM errata" site were added. This would hopefully automate the whole
> process. Similarly for RAM sites, perhaps.
>
> Ivor Catt 6feb01
>