Censorship, FOIA, and Mary Yugo

  • Quote

    Why then would you seek to allow vitriolic attacks to accompany perhaps legitimate points of view.


    Perhaps you could look at a specific example of MY's "vitriolic attack" and then go on from there?


    My memory is that posting here she has asserted firmly that various companies are fraudulent. While that is from my POV difficult to prove, as far as I can determine it is her legitimate point of view that this is true, and she supports it with strong evidence.
    While, to me, this cannot easily distinguish between fraud and extreme incompetence it certainly makes a damning meta-evidence picture.


    Take the case of Sniffex. Our her statements about that company vitriolic when she says their device does not work and therefore they are defrauding customers? Surely, if she is right as seems pretty certain, it is important that possible customers understand that this is a fake explosives detector: it could save lives. In this case should her attacks on Sniffex, substantive and important, be disregarded or censored because she uses the wrong language?


    Now to Rossi. She regards Rossi as certainly a fraud and I do not agree with her. However the evidence she presents is real, and the possibility that Rossi is fraudulent is very real. Specifically, Rossi has behaved in his repeated demos in a manner that encourages an objective observer to believe that he is falsifying demo results.


    Do you view the above statement as vitriolic? Or, do you consider it vitriolic if I remove the uncertainty and state that as a definite conclusion? My point is that most people, looking at the facts that MY highlights, would I think conclude Rossi is most likely deliberately misleading people in his public demos. I realise that there are many here and at ECW who would have the opposite view, but MY's view is reasonable and backed by specific facts.


    So: what constitutes 'vitriolic attack'? I realise that MY specifically sees it as her mission to expose frauds and cheats. She will therefore be negative in her posts. Is such behaviour never to be countenanced? If we accept LENR as probable, are we therefore not supposed to argue that somone who claims they have LENR is a rogue?


    I think you dislike MY because of her style, not her substance. For me, while style is good, substance is more important. And I don't see anyone else arguing the (broadly reasonable) case that she proposes.

  • I've counted 83 times (give or take some ;) ) now that Tom has claimed he is about to be banned here. But truth be told, he has never even been close. Maybe he wants to be banned and become a skep martyr? That would give him higher status back at the Mainstream Physics Dept. faculty bar and lounge. Dr. Clark, why he fought the forces of ignorance right up until the day they banned him...what a guy, cheers to Tom!


    If so, and you want to be banned, may I suggest you start being a bit more inflammatory and libelous Tom? What you are doing now just isn't going to hack it. You are just too nice. Get mean, and nasty. If you need some ideas, read some of Mary's old posts. :)


    Take care.

  • @Thomas Clarke
    The question of tuneable coloured light and selectable output of electricity and heat is not whether it is possible, or even if Rossi has that technology, but how can it be done? And can someone be inspired to make it happen?


    Whether someone has made such a thing, and it is being kept secret for a while barely interests me at all. There is no way to verify or disprove the existence of such a fantastic devices if we are not insiders. Quoting physics principles to disprove such inventions without knowing the supposed principle(s) of operation is pointless. If there are ways of increasing the likelihood of such inventions, then these should be fostered. There will always be scammers and snake oil salesmen, but these can only be stopped with proof, not conjecture or trumpeting their past performances. Many criminals have moved on to productive lives. Former criminals are subject to higher scrutiny, while a person with a clean record might actually have a much better chance of pulling off a big scam, since suspicion is not arroused as easily. Certainly parading an endless spectacle very much in the public eye is a very peculiar way of avoiding suspicion.

  • Thomas


    I would like to end my exchange with you with a tribute to you for professing high standards, but this is it from way back:


    (1) personal attacks towards discussants.
    These are absolutely unhelpful. They may even be enjoyed by participants but they illuminate nothing and are at best self-indulgence, at worst hurtful.


    I agree with you 100% with this. My dilemma is I also agree with a lot (but by no means all) of what Mary Yugo said but definitely not the verbal abuse that I personally feel went with it.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Quote from TC quoted by frank

    (1) personal attacks towards discussants.These are absolutely unhelpful. They may even be enjoyed by participants but they illuminate nothing and are at best self-indulgence, at worst hurtful.


    It remains my sincere belief. I may occasionally make such attacks, we are all human, but it is not helpful and I try not to.


    Quote

    I agree with you 100% with this. My dilemma is I also agree with a lot (but by no means all) of what Mary Yugo said but definitely not the verbal abuse that I personally feel went with it.


    Do you have an example where MY has verbally abused discussants - as opposed to third parties of interest? She may have done so, but I don't remember it being a particular issue in her case.

  • Quote from Paradigmnoia

    The question of tuneable coloured light and selectable output of electricity and heat is not whether it is possible, or even if Rossi has that technology, but how can it be done? And can someone be inspired to make it happen?


    The issue here is not possibility, it is likelihood. If you think this plausible you need to go to ECW. And the interesting question here is why Rossi continually says things that are so bizaare.

  • Thomas


    Think, man! How insane or stupid would someone have to be to have a real, working,table top, high power (kilowatts) cold fusion reactor and then to squat in some silly container, Lord knows where, to test it for a year. It's so stupid, it defies credibility except to the most gullible of individuals. Surely you're not one of those!


    Best regards
    Frank

  • While that paragraph is strongly written, it is not a personal attack. This statement that, based on something you have just stated, you would be obviously stupid to hold it is not a reference to your character or ability outside of the topic of discussion. I agree this method of expression is unfortunate, the word stupid is an insult, but there is no personal animosity, merely a strongly stated view.

  • Thomas


    In answer to a contributor she describes someone she believes to be insane and stupid squatting in some silly container which defies credibility except to the most gullible, and then asks the contributor if they have similar charactorisics.


    Well its just as well you don't take exception, Mary's comments were addressed to you.


    Now there's food for thought!


    Try not to get too upset, I'm sure it was unfortunate rather than malicious.


    Best regards
    Frank


    PS: Ref Jan 10th 2016 Huw Price Reputation Trap (No pun intended)

  • @Thomas Clarke
    I don't really know how to assess likelihood in such cases.
    I can dream up a way to do what Rossi says, but the particulars are currently beyond my capabilities.
    What if a method was developed whereby selective ionization could be performed on some materials that could selectively stimulate the emission of specific photon energy levels (colours), including IR? The freed electrons could be used to develop a current. As a basic premise, it is not too complicated. Engineering this would be complicated. The over unity part is one or more steps beyond for most folks, but is already a premise for our intrepid inventor.

  • Quote


    Well its just as well you don't take exception, Mary's comments were addressed to you.Now there's food for thought!Try not to get too upset, I'm sure it was unfortunate rather than malicious.


    I think that makes my point? Indeed I would not get upset.

  • Do you have an example where MY has verbally abused discussants - as opposed to third parties of interest? She may have done so, but I don't remember it being a particular issue in her case.


    I have nothing against MY, personally. She can be abrasive, however, which does no service to her cause. She has regularly insulted forum participants here and elsewhere. The insults have not been particularly nasty.


    Well, if Mary Yugo is returning I hope she is nice!!


    From time to time I see her name pop up in the list of people online: "Mary Yugo". I do not know if it is her, or someone impersonating her. I saw her online yesterday and on the day that Tom mentioned that she had been banned.