Censorship, FOIA, and Mary Yugo

  • Quote

    The debate is not about an endless discussion about what a debate is but about the behavior of people participating in this debate.I know this is your thread - you've created this thread - and you are on the endless debate about what a discussion should be or not to be. You mean that to dislike what you write is censorship?


    I hope I've knocked this on the head above. No, not at all, and I absolutely respect the right of anyone to dislike anything. I'm saying that as an element of communication a "dislike" button is poor. Because it indicates a feeling without explaining the reasons for that feeling.

  • Thomas


    I'm not complaining about the dislike - though when somone says I've done something wrong it is always nicer to be told why this is.


    I am pleased you like contributions which are 'nicer'. I think we can work with that! For me I have decided to ignore all contributions that are not 'nice' regardless of how useful elements might be. So please forgive me if I do not challenge some of your posts in the future.


    OTOH I believe in frank discussion, directly exchanged points of view, and saying someone is wrong when you believe this.


    So do I and I think most people on this forum do so long as it is respectful.


    So the 'nice contributions' , yes particularly if they are frank discussion, directly exchanged points of view, and saying someone is wrong when you believe this; but when they become 'disrespectful will ignor them on principle.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Quote

    So do I and I think most people on this forum do so long as it is respectful.


    I ignore trolls too. But I have a high tolerance for abrasive comments which nevertheless have substance. Content trumps style. Respectful is good, but is often interpreted in a subjective fashion. Having a low threshold for ignoring people means you may ignore quite a lot of important information and argument.


    Best wishes, Tom

  • Thomas brings up a neat point about the "dislike" button. Maybe it could be coupled to an indicator bar that has be clicked to complete the action of "disliking". One bar step for each dislike. Something like...
    Disagree....... XX
    Rude........... XXXXXXXX
    Wildly off topic ..
    etc.

  • I really can't believe this debate is still going on. It is not THAT big a deal to boot someone from a website. Doing so does not mean the world will end soon, or even real soon.


    I think the mods have shown much, maybe too much tolerance. The Admin even more. Just the fact they are agonizing so over this, is proof of either their fairness, French heritage :) , or Thomas' very annoying, constant drumbeat, driving us, and Admin, crazy...I don't know?


    I like Mary, obnoxious as he is. But then again, were I the Admin here, he would have been gone long ago. The mods and Admin have all the feedback they need to make a decision...so please, please do so. Make the drumbeat stop!

  • Axil


    I request that the fraud patrol resident on this site check out this product for fraud. Its an antigravity drone. The people concerned with science fraud might well turn their attention from cold fusion to another hard to believe project. After all money might be stolen and people killed by a drone falling from the sky.


    I checked this out, very interesting but when I searched for 'Antigravity Drone - LGE fraud/scam' found nothing. Also could not find any independent reviews. Do you have any evidence this is a fraud other than the fact it seems very unlikely?


    I never thought I would say this, but Thomas seems to have a point if your suggestions of 'potential' fraud are not based on at least some research or evidence based opinion.


    However, if you are saying that it seems strange that people like MY appear to target LENR to the exclusion of other 'fringe science' then you may be right but then that is freedom of choice.


    However, back to topic, Whatever people say on forums like this it must be respectful and polite and MY has stepped over the line many times, she has banned herself.

  • I've only been a member for a few months, and was a visitor long before that. I basically quit coming and observing the discussions because of a handful of obnoxious individuals. I'm not socially fragile either, I got paid to deal with the disagreements that got too big or bad for anything other than the law.


    I learned long ago, there are two sides to every story and you really need to get the other one before you make up your mind or you might regret it. So, I actually seek out divergent views on controversial topics. My world view has broadened immensely because of it. My early eagerness has had to slow down a time or two, and my 'prove it' skepticism has tasted crow more than once.


    I'm glad the admins here finally agreed to deal with some of the negative droning. I see forums kind of like extended dinner parties where the host has invited a lot of people that you don't know, but are interested in hearing, with a generally common thread.


    Like a good dinner party (as opposed to a club) you get into, or overhear conversations that have a differing viewpoint or even theory than your own. This is entertaining and informative and hopefully mutual. But, also like some dinner parties, there's a guest or two that drops in on every [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] to repeat their stock line. It may have been informative at one time, but every time just makes you want to walk away and join another discussion...and they show up there, saying the same thing, over and over. After a while, you realize the host is content to let this boor wreck all the conversations, so there really isn't much point in sticking around, even if you really like the party otherwise. Dissent and all.


    So, to the MYs and TYYs, GTFO! We already know what you're going to say. Been there, done that. Can't you see grownups are talking here? Now leave us alone and don't let the door hit you on the a**. Good night.


    My 2c. Thank you, Admins. Now where were we?

  • As a mere lurker on this site, the excommunication of MY is for me regrettable (as is the PITA way one has to skip to the end of a thread and read backwards to get the latest info).


    I did not find his/her occasional input an impediment to the functionality of this portal. In fact, it was occasionally a refreshing reminder that little or no hard, replaceable proof of LENR exists despite the cadre arguing how many LENR angels can dance on the head of a pin, going on as if to doubt their faith is blasphemy.


    In all appreciation for the smart individuals working hard to validate and replicate LENR once and for all, please be tolerant of a colorful and passionate gadfly biting at your ankles occasionally. No cult-like echo chamber, please.

  • @Thomas,


    I totally hear you on Sniffex...but what seemed to me to be happening was a couple of one note sambas were going Sniffex on the Sniffexers.


    I thought MY had an interesting and occasionally cogent thesis that was often helped by the fact that topical actors would often turn out as predicted. That said, if I know that I'm hiking through an active cow pasture, I don't need a crusader with a megaphone to be constantly reminding me and everyone else enjoying the scenery to watch out for the pies. We get it...about the third time you're really wondering if somebody's not stuck in a loop or something.


    Then there's the whole thread hijacking thing and personal venom that was getting really off putting.


    I actually enjoying reading the contrarian and cautionary viewpoints, probably more than the fannish ones. They make me think. Yours in particular. I went and read your critique of the Lugano report on PDF and had a major eye opening to where you're coming from and assigned much respect your way.


    You post a lot, but you post on the thread's topic and make good arguments, albeit predictably directional, but I respect that. You don't post off topic as a wedge to start driving your singular agenda home.


    So, yes it's a shame a familiar voice had to be silenced, but it was done to the massive relief of the hardy few who remained to see it. Who knows how many just got turned off and left. As for some others, they just remind me of atheists going into faith based forums and pissing on the views of the faithful because they don't believe or haven't seen anything for themselves. I know this is science, but I can't pass up a good analogy.


    Neither will be missed by me. Non-Value Added.

  • Quote

    As for some others, they just remind me of atheists going into faith based forums and pissing on the views of the faithful because they don't believe or haven't seen anything for themselves.


    Not a bad analogy. Personally, I'm not an atheist. I do not have the passionate disbelief or desire to convert others. Though I follow Thomas Henry Huxley in not seeing enough evidence to be a theist. Call me a passionate agnostic (as opposed to a "wishy-washy" can't decide agnostic).


    That evangelical atheism is as much a belief as evangelical theism is often denied by atheists but it is true.

  • Mary wherever you are!


    That didn't stop DGT, as they carried the charade even further by moving to Vancouver Canada to "expand", nor did it stop a few LENR believers continuing their loyalty afterwards. Even after more damning evidence surfaced thanks to Mary Yugo. This is the one time I will complement Mary, as he was onto them and kept at it.


    I ignore trolls too. But I have a high tolerance for abrasive comments which nevertheless have substance. Content trumps style. Respectful is good, but is often interpreted in a subjective fashion. Having a low threshold for ignoring people means you may ignore quite a lot of important information and argument.


    Hmmmmmmm!

  • Mary like the nay-believers did not help on Defkalion, (I was there), because she moan all the time, she cannot accept anything agains her positions, so her opinion il like a constant independent of data.


    Jed Rothwell raised many questions, and more generally the LENR community was agreeing on the fact that it was a pony show, not a real test.
    There was question about water flow, but not enough data to conclude on any side. Of course skeptics concluded without enough data, and were finally right like a dead clock is right twice a day.


    Only Luca, who was there , could cross check all and find the problem.


    We don't need nay-believers, but skeptics with hand on the baby.


    Nay-believers are like conspiracy fan. sometime they are right, but it is hard to check when, and best is to ignore their opinion, and at best focus on their sources which sometimes are valuable.

  • AlainCo says now about Defkalion: "...and more generally the LENR community was agreeing on the fact that it was a pony show, not a real test."


    Alain CoetmeurJuly 27, 2013 at 9:18 AM


    "Today MFMP let a buzz flee about a probable third party test of Hyperion...
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=610988905598479&set=a.587293604634676.1073741827.466698113360893&type=1


    This test was giving confidence but let shadow for skeptics to hid into. Hope a 3rd party test dispel the shadow and corner the skeptics."

  • Things evolved, but it was first impression.
    There was shadow, and the was a beast in the shadow that time.


    find where nay-believers said it was an artifact with electric circuit, a problem with thermocouple, that Mats was paid by DGT, that Luca was paid by DGT...


    I just said it was looking good, and unlike nay-believers I wait for evidence of fraud to say it is a fraud.
    Slowly looking at critics I moved to the idea it was a pony show, waiting for Luca Gamberale reaction. His reaction was negative, but quite ambiguous (discrepanbcies).


    the reason to be confident was
    - freedom to test the electric circuit (normal it was ok)
    - a kind of watercircuit calibration, but the trick was in the different situation (steam vs no steam - Jed see it as a possibility, because he is experienced)


    the hypothesis of the water meter being fooled was among a pile of BS hypothesis.