Talk-Polywell.org

Greetings,
Several folks have commented on the advocative nature of the FAQ. Since I REALLY don't want to try to go back thru all of the answers and remove any POV type statements, I put the following statement right up front. Should I change it? Remove it? Talk to me folks.

PS: If any of you are interested in actually working on it, please contact ohiovr to become an editor.

=============
This wiki is intended to be an adjunct to the talk-polywell.org forum. As such, it is primarily developed by individuals that are highly interested in the technology and advocate the continued development of it.

Because of this, many of the answers to questions herein take an advocate's point of view. This is not wikipedia with its neutral POV, but generally an advocates forum. Therefore, you are asked to understand that throughout these F.A.Q.s, any "forward looking" statements or statements that imply a Point of View should be read to assume the statement is being made by an advocate, because it almost certainly was.

Where you read "is expected" think "is expected by advocates"; where you read "it seems likely" understand that "it seems likely to advocates". Got it?

Technical statements and definitions are kept as accurate as practical.

I'd like the first and last sentences only, maybe rewritten as a one liner. It's proper to inform the casual observer of it's advocacy.

The 2 middle paragraphs seem excessive.

I think Helius might be right, if I have it right it'll look like this:

This wiki is intended to be an adjunct to the talk-polywell.org forum. As such, it is developed by individuals who are highly interested in the technology and advocate for it. Technical statements and definitions are kept as accurate as practical.

I chopped it up a bit.

I have read you points and they are pretty good. I have edited the loead in but not exactly how you proposed. It is kind of a compromise. It goes like this.

This wiki is intended to be an adjunct to the talk-polywell.org forum. As such, it is primarily developed by individuals that are highly interested in the technology and advocate the continued development of it.

Any "forward looking" statements or statements that imply a Point of View should be read to assume the statement is being made by an advocate.

Technical statements and definitions are kept as accurate as practical.

Hope that is good enough.

KitemanSA wrote:I have read you points and they are pretty good. I have edited the loead in but not exactly how you proposed. It is kind of a compromise. It goes like this.

This wiki is intended to be an adjunct to the talk-polywell.org forum. As such, it is primarily developed by individuals that are highly interested in the technology and advocate the continued development of it.

Any "forward looking" statements or statements that imply a Point of View should be read to assume the statement is being made by an advocate.

Technical statements and definitions are kept as accurate as practical.

Hope that is good enough.

Technical statements and definitions are kept as accurate as relatively short answers will allow.

i.e. I'm defining why there is a practicality limit - to avoid suspicion.

In other words practical is not equal to arbitrary.

MSimon wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:I have read you points and they are pretty good. I have edited the loead in but not exactly how you proposed. It is kind of a compromise. It goes like this.

This wiki is intended to be an adjunct to the talk-polywell.org forum. As such, it is primarily developed by individuals that are highly interested in the technology and advocate the continued development of it.

Any "forward looking" statements or statements that imply a Point of View should be read to assume the statement is being made by an advocate.

Technical statements and definitions are kept as accurate as practical.

Hope that is good enough.

Technical statements and definitions are kept as accurate as relatively short answers will allow.

i.e. I'm defining why there is a practicality limit - to avoid suspicion.

In other words practical is not equal to arbitrary.

I'd have to agree with MSimon on that. Personally, I'd write it as:

This wiki is intended to be an adjunct to the talk-polywell.org forum. As such, it is primarily developed by advocates of the technology. Any statements that imply a point of view or are "forward looking" were most likely made by an advocate.

Technical statements and definitions are kept as accurate as these short answers allow.

How about something like this?

While it is difficult to avoid a point of view, efforts (steps) have been make (taken) to avoid advocacy in preparing this FAQ.

Choose between efforts made or steps taken.

That says to me that our point of view is slanted toward polywell but we are not shills for it with a single agenda. After all, we do make a real effort to discover workable solutions, and we don't bend the science deliberately when it seems unworkable. And this FAQ has been fairly exposed to the forum community during its preparation. I suppose you could say efforts have been made and steps taken ...