reply re. Stetzer filter

I'm sorry that I am not able to keep current with the conversation here.
However, late is better than never.

Way back in July, Randolf asked: "When I use Stetzer filter in a
guesthouse will they help because I can only use them in the room I rented and
this will not be enough for a whole house."

Then Charles replied:
"no, they will not be enouigh for the whole house.
But they will suffice for your room.
Of course it depends on the present *dirt* in your mains.
As an estimate, I would suggest that you place three of those filters, who
will take care of the dirt.
But that is only a suggestion, without knowing the present situation."

This is not right. You are not filtering a room, you are filtering the
electrical pollution present on the circuit, which happens to pass through
many rooms. In order to bring the level down to what is safe (about 20) you
will have to use as many filters as it takes to do that - no matter whether you
put them all in one room or not.

Charles also said:
"On the other hand, I have been warned, that overhere in Europe, more
Stetzer filters in a house can be dangerous, because they may cause unwanted
resonances, by which electrical equipment can be damaged. So for use in
Europe, one has to be very carefull."

I would like to know who started this rumor. Every time I think we
have managed to counter all the strange rumors about the Stetzer filters,
another one seems to be started by someone.

Regards,
Shivani
www.LifeEnergies.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi folks:

I note with a bit of concern that the poster below cc'ed two list
non-list-members (the addresses were: [hidden email] and
[hidden email]) on her post sent to the list; said post to
list included portions of a previous post sent to the list group by
Charles. Such an act is often considered on many list groups to be a
major violation of list rules and of web etiquette unless the sender
(in this case, [hidden email]) had received exlicit permission to do
so from the list owner and from the list member whose post she had
reproduced. In fact, such actions result in immediate banning on my
own list groups (although I am not necessarily advocating that the
list owner here should take the same actions...) In fact, there have
been similar cases recounted on the web which have resulted in civil
suits and civil judgements due to copyright violation and violation of privacy.

I am also concerned about the accuracy/veracity of a number of
statements made by the same author ([hidden email]) in this and
recent posts, wherein she presents her private and often very unique
opinions as established fact rather than as her own opinions (I have
seen several other list members here exhibit the same behavior); one
example is her recent comments regarding skin effect and
high-frequency noise currents generated along AC power lines, where I
believe that she has assigned some very unique personal
interpretations to skin effect phenomena and high-frequency noise
currrents on AC lines. I personally feel that this poster is entitled
to her own opinions even if I disagree with some of them radically,
but it might serve the needs of list members better if she were to
present them as her own opinions rather than as established fact.

with care,
--Vinny

At 07:27 PM 11/21/2006, you wrote:

Vinny Pinto
[hidden email]

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:
http://www.vinnypinto.us

--- In [hidden email], Vinny Pinto <vinny@...> wrote:
You are rather creating problems than anything else with this statement.

my email is walkingthe@a....

the post from sarjuna was okay
I can also afterI have received an unexpected email decide if i want
further ones or not.


In fact, there have
> been similar cases recounted on the web which have resulted in civil
> suits and civil judgements due to copyright violation and violation of
privacy.
>
> I am also concerned about the accuracy/veracity of a number of
> statements made by the same author (SArjuna@...) in this and
> recent posts, wherein she presents her private and often very unique
> opinions as established fact rather than as her own opinions

What today is an established fact is tomorrow refuted. Scienctific results
often not more true than an opinion.


(I have
> seen several other list members here exhibit the same behavior); one
> example is her recent comments regarding skin effect and
> high-frequency noise currents generated along AC power lines, where
I
> believe that she has assigned some very unique personal
> interpretations to skin effect phenomena and high-frequency noise
> currrents on AC lines. I personally feel that this poster is entitled
> to her own opinions even if I disagree with some of them radically,
> but it might serve the needs of list members better if she were to
> present them as her own opinions rather than as established fact.

it is also our own task to think about information we get. But we could
discuss about if or how to label a message.

Randolf