Censorship, FOIA, and Mary Yugo

@Paradigmnoia
Have I ever said I thought forums were democratic? And I myself pointed out that forums can have whatever rules they want.

I agree there is nothing to stop this forum going the way of ECW - it is half way there already. However it is my view that the more LENR supporters form little coteries that do not listen to criticism the worse for them. And I agree there ois nothing to prevent like minded people at ECW from existing in a censored bubble. Nor is there (yet) anything to stop me here from saying that I view that state of affairs (strong censorship to promote falsehoods) as abhorrent. That is my personal view, to which I am entitled, and I don't expect others to share it.

It may be my views are so atypical of people here that this place will ban me, or start heavily moderating my posts (the same, because I would go). I won't complain about that, if it happens. Until it does I will stay in the corner of the few LENR supporters who believe robust criticism and debate the best way to progress scientific understanding.

MY's views are relevant here, because if Rossi is as she thinks we should be much less ready to accept things he claims as (probable) facts that will help unlock the LENR mystery.

Most people, considering Rossi's statements and work, will conclude that Rossi either has something that works or is fraudulent. I'm not in that group - as you know. But for all those, to refuse discussion about Rossi's possible fraud is to refuse discussion about the possibility that his stuff might not work. That refusal biasses the discussion in a way that is harmful.

So: yes MY is abrasive, but her contribution here was worth something, and this site is loses some integrity by bannoing her.

It is not for me to decide what are this site's rules or how are they interpreted, but unless I'm censored I will comment on this matter as I have done.

@frank
Re my "support" for MY. You have perhaps realised that I care passionately about freedom of speech. As in the US constitution. I don't think others have to agree, and therefore there will be many internet forums that care less about this than me. I did not make a fuss about tyy. He really did not add anything to the debate and though I would not have banned him, and feel sort of sorry, I cannot in that case make a fuss.

MY was banned precisely because she articulated one unpopular view with vigor and brought on occasion new facts to the table. I can see (from the number of -1s that even I get) that there is here not much stomach for listening to contrary views. I'm sorry. It won't stop me passionately for arguing that censorship is wrong.

Re ad homs. Do you remember my reason for disliking them? it was because they moved discussion from facts at issue to personalities of those debating. And that will never end. Debating Rossi's personality is different, since he is not a discussant here but is an object of discussion. It is, indeed, one of the facts at issue. My reticence on the matter is because I'm not confident to work out other people's personalities, and view all such meta-data as inherently unreliable. I prefer to judge people on their deeds, and judge Rossi on his lamentable behaviour over demos. I also prefer, even with Rossi, to highlight his actions rather than my inferences (if I have any) from these about his character.

But MY's different view of these things is tenable and she has, as has been pointed out, done more to save lives through her comment than me or you or Rossi.

@Paradigmnoia

Quote

The site does not lose integrity by banning someone that agrees to the terms of use, then disrespects those terms. The site loses integrity by not enforcing the terms of use that are explicit.

True, but not to the point. I'm using integrity in a more general sense of being a place where genuine debate in a Socratic sense can properly be conducted. That is, I agree, not a requirement. ECW does very well without it, and many people are just not interested in views contrary to their own, or in testing their views against the opposite.

I fully realise that the owner and moderators of this site may feel that genuine debate is not a priority. Through history that has always been popular with those who are convinced they are right. That is their privilege. Inasfar as I disagree with that I will say so, with reasons. If I'm banned (for example, I could under current rules be banned for repetition - a clause that is entirely subjective if enforced, since almost everyone is repetitive here) that will stop but otherwise I will call it as I see it. And I personally believe that my doing that will be supported by anyone on this forum who cares more about accuracy than about promoting a political message (if there are any such here). I like to be optimistic about that possibility.

Quote

Posters that agree to the terms of use, them immediately disobey them, demonstrate their own lack of integrity.

Such terms are always subject to interpretation, and posters cannot be expected to know the exact limits of this. For example, I remember Alain repeatedly here accusing me of dishonesty, deliberate lying, even (if it was him, certainly somone) being a paid shill, because my posts here could have no other explanation. I've also been repeatedly accused of having a mental disturbance for posting here. How is that less insulting than calling Rossi a fraud, because his actions could have no other explanation? And, as I've pointed out, rules of courtesy on a forum need to apply to discussants, but if applied strictly to objects of discussion they distort reality to an alarming extent.

For example: it is insulting to call Rossi a liar. And, yet, if not, anything he says must be accepted as true. That will take you down an ECW-like rabbit-hole of inconsistency from which you can never emerge. As I've pointed out above, if the rules here really mean that considering Rossi may be a fraud is verbotem, then the many here who reckon he must either be a fraud or have his claimed miracle will be unable to post anything except a one-sided version of events. If considering Rossi is a fraud is allowed, then it must be a matter of interpretation whether given evidence justifies a stronger statement. And, as you well know, many LENR supporters are as convinced as I am that Rossi is a flake. Note my post above where I marshall the evidence MY relies upon that supports the contention that Rossi is a fraud. It is quite strong. Can you really tell the difference between these posts and MY's posts, other than in tone? In which case, for consistency, I should be banned. Perhaps that will happen.

Of course moderators here are free to insist on whatever rules they want, and free to interpret them as they wish. I've never disputed that. Equally, I am free to point out when such rules, in my view, amount to inconsistent censorship that damages the integrity (see above) of the site.

@frankwtu

Quote

You are a champion (bully) at applying the rules of this forum (to achieve censorship) when it suits you but criticise them when it doesn't, for example...

Firstly, I don't apply the rules of this forum, because I'm not a moderator. So nothing I say can censor you. You will notice that I have not reported any of your posts and would only do so in very extreme circumstances which I can't imagine would happen. My tolerance level is high.

I'm mentioning rules here because the thread is about banning MY because of polite and factually substantiated, but abrasive, posts claiming Rossi and a few other people are frauds. MY supports her views by writing personally to the relevant authorities, and has therefore probably been instrumental in saving a number of lives: no trivial thing.

Such a campaign would be far from the topic here except that as you know players claiming LENR may be fraudulent - the known case being DGT. It must be harmful for the whole field to be supporting frauds or flakes and so accurate information about this possibility, even if abrasively delivered, is IMHO worth having and evaluating.

Therefore when you say it is right to ban her, but (mildly) behave yourself contrary to rules, it is on topic for me to mention this. We are none of us perfect and I'm holding out for more tolerance.

Well I certainly don't like Alain here using false binary choices - as he does whenever he repeats his argument for why I must be irrational etc.

I'd be interested if you could say what you think is a false binary choice, or why slippery slope is dreaded, and by whom...

It is true that I'm simplifying somewhat. But I'm not saying that my simplifications are the only possibility, they are exemplary.

I guess you could try to draw a line between me and MY where one side (sort of me) is giving strong evidence consistent with Rossi fraud, and saying this, and the other side (MY) is concluding from said evidence that he must be a fraud.

I vary from MY definitely in that she excludes the possibility that Rossi is deluded and fully believes his stuff is real while also deliberately faking demos etc. I don't exclude that, so don't conclude fraud so easily from the same evidence. Otherwise we have pretty similar views, and I have to say a lot of other people side with MY on this, that given said evidence Rossi must be fraudulent.

Also, you could try and draw a line where MY repeats her accusations, and I, having said things once, have less of a tendency to repeat (though I still do it, as we all do). So I can see you could have rules fairly implemented that would include me but exclude MY. I just don't (for the reasons above) think they are good for this site's integrity - and will post that unless I am banned.

Quote from frankwtu

Please give me examples of the instances I may have written on this forum where I have suggested 'my intention is to marshal evidence that you are 'fraudulent' If you cannot, you must withdraw your suggestion and apologise, if you can I of course will apologise.

I said "fraudulent etc", and in response to your comments below (MYs only accusations are of fraud or similar).

Quote from frankwtu

I know how you hate 'factual details' (that don't fit your narrative).I think not, as you appear to have had a 'wobble' already. Its not 'fun' being on the receiving end is it?...

So let me ask you this. If I were to adopt a similar rhetoric to that of MY which includesThomas Clarke wrote:plentiful circumstantial evidence and aim it in your direction throwing in a new fact every now and then, would you still hold to your view...

For once I agree with you so I will challenge your attempt at censoring me on the other thread.

Quote from frankwtu

...is that something you worry about, why?

I'm not worried in the least. In fact I'm enjoying myself and hope you are too.

@Paradigmnoia - Happy Easter!

Glad to see you are putting up a fight here.

"it is insulting to call Rossi a liar. And, yet, if not, anything he says must be accepted as true."
- false binary choice

I agree that there is often room for some middle alternative but contend in this case that the point is well made. The key matter at issue is whether e-cats work. Most here would I think agree that either Rossi is a liar (and lies over matters central to his business) or e-cats work in the sense of delivering easily measurable by any means plentiful excess heat. I'll admit your false binary choice only if you can propose some plausible middle ground on this question?

"That will take you down an ECW-like rabbit-hole of inconsistency from which you can never emerge."
- slippery slope argument plus regressive fallacy

A casual reading of ECW will surely convince you of the Alice-in Wonderland world you enter when Rossi's statements are taken as true? "E-quark-Xs which can generate heat, electricity, and light - with the frequency of the light tunable read/blue/green".

"if the rules here really mean that considering Rossi may be a fraud is verbotem, then the many here who reckon he must either be a fraud or have his claimed miracle will be unable to post anything except a one-sided version of events"
-slippery slope argument plus faulty induction
The argument is not induction, and not faulty. I think your point is that somone might consider Rossi could be a fraud but not articulate their reasons for that view. But that, while I'm sure it is often done, leads also to a one-sided version of events in which 20 demos are argued as evidence for Rossi's device working because the evidence for them not being true tests implies (in the minds of the discussants) that Rossi is a fraud and this is not allowed. You find this argument all over ECW and it is a clear distortion of the truth. The fact that in some people's minds it does not hold has no affect on the written record if the possibility of Rossi being fraudulent cannot seriously be written in a post.

"If considering Rossi is a fraud is allowed, then it must be a matter of interpretation whether given evidence justifies a stronger statement."
faulty induction
My statement is not inductive at all, so you misuse the phrase. In fact it is quite a weak claim I make. You could perhaps quarrel with it by showing how justifying a stronger statement did not depend on interpretation, but you do not do this.

"And, as you well know, many LENR supporters are as convinced as I am that Rossi is a flake"
-partial defense does not equal support.
The partial collective represents a number of whole people whose views coincide with me and MY. Therefore you misuse this argument.

"Note my post above where I marshall the evidence MY relies upon that supports the contention that Rossi is a fraud. It is quite strong."
-Argumentum ad fatigum
If you call strong arguments this, then you overuse the phrase. If you object to my quoting the argument here it is for a specific logical purpose (to show that the distinction between my stated views an those of MY are small). I did not restate the arguments but need to reference them. So this criticism is just wrong.

"Can you really tell the difference between these posts and MY's posts, other than in tone? In which case, for consistency, I should be banned. Perhaps that will happen."
-fuzzy distinction followed by faulty induction
"fuzzy distinction" is subtle undermining (from you). If you had a leg to stang on you would argue how the distinction could be made. "Faulty induction" - it is not induction, it is a simple argument based on a defensible definition of consistency. If the posts cannot be distinguished (hypothesised premise) and MY is banned but I am not then the rules are applied inconsistently.

"For example: it is insulting to call Rossi a liar. And, yet, if not, anything he says must be accepted as true. That will take you down an ECW-like rabbit-hole of inconsistency from which you can never emerge. As I've pointed out above, if the rules here really mean that considering Rossi may be a fraud is verbotem, then the many here who reckon he must either be a fraud or have his claimed miracle will be unable to post anything except a one-sided version of events. If considering Rossi is a fraud is allowed, then it must be a matter of interpretation whether given evidence justifies a stronger statement. And, as you well know, many LENR supporters are as convinced as I am that Rossi is a flake. Note my post above where I marshall the evidence MY relies upon that supports the contention that Rossi is a fraud. It is quite strong. Can you really tell the difference between these posts and MY's posts, other than in tone? In which case, for consistency, I should be banned. Perhaps that will happen."
-subtle undermining
Your comment here is too subtle for me! If you mean undermining of Rossi then my statements thoughout this thread and here are not subtle but rather blatent. Overland attack would seem a more appropriate phrase.

Quote

So, you are unable to give me any examples 'where I have suggested my intention is to marshal evidence that you are 'fraudulent'. But also you are unwilling to apologise or withdraw, that gives quite an insight into your tactical approach to this forum.

Frank - you are being disingenuous here - I'm not sure if you realise.

I have given you the evidence on which I based my offhand comment. I was not accusing you of doing this, merely on the basis perhaps of a misunderstanding of the comments I quoted thinking that this is what you proposed. In fact I did not believe you would be able to do it, but was challenging you on the basis of your comments to do your worst.

So I may have misunderstood you but see no reason to apologise for this - we are both equally responsible for the failure in communication and it surely would do me more harm than you (though since I am not easily harmed it is of no consequence).

You are using language "tactical approach" which is I think in Paradigmnoia's wonderful phrase "subtle undermining". I'm responding to logical argument with logic, mainly as an entertainment. I am however quite serious and passionate about the main issue here, which is that censorship of skeptics like MY on this forum is greatly damaging. Not because I like MY particularly (we have very different styles) but because I see the arguments here as sorely one-sided and reckon the few skpetics here could easily be discouraged. Whether you support LENR or no, allowing debate with genuine skeptics is helpful. I'm not going on about that because I've made my point and mostly now with Paradigmnoia's help I'm just having fun.

Quote

etc.... so annoying to bother with reading or replying to further. Which is why the continuous quote and respond method has been shown to be the least persuasive method of of internet discussion in a study, BTW.

Of course, but then both you and I were not, I think, trying to persuade anyone over this...

Quote

Calling someone a liar is almost always insulting (even if true). Not calling someone liar does not mean accepting everything they say as true. Perhaps there are a mix of truths and untruths. Perhaps our opinions or appraisals of the situation are not correct. Perhaps Rossi has something, but pretends to understand it better than he does. Perhaps he grossly underestimates the challenges in getting a product made from an anomalous effect. Lots of wiggle room, really.

Of course, there is inevitably all this uncertainty. Which brings as back to the LENR confirmation bias paradox. If you think LENR ordinary (like, perhaps, a new LED bulb with 20% better performance) then Rossi's machinations can plausibly be explained - as he would say - in a positive or negative way. In that case I'd still argue for negative, but admit the significant possibility of a weird positive. If you think LENR is extraordinary, never having been substantiated, incoherent, and therefore a hypothesis one would hold likely only given very strong evidence - Rossi has nothing.

Where I lose patience is with the argument that Rossi/[lexicon]IH[/lexicon]/WPC actiuons are inexplicable unless he has working product, and therefore overcome the inherent extraordinariness of LENR.

Quote

I accept your apology.

Thanks for that Frank.

"Fantastic tales don't lead most people into some irreversible logic spiral or whatever you mean. The regressive fallacy is that the consequences of inconsistent stories can only get worse, not better."

As in much of the previous entertaining but not exactly enlightening discussion between us, little can be gleaned about the appropriateness or not of arguments from an analysis of their logical structure. My response to you was of course to show that while not always careful in how I choose words, I'm careful enough to defend what I say logically.

None of which speaks to the issue. For example, here, I find the analogy of a Lewis Carrol fantasy comes to mind whenever I read ECW. It is 90% fantastic stories on a par (though not as colorful as ) the e-quark-X that can emit tunable colored light as well as electricity and heat.

I sometimes think Rossi has a great sense of humour.

There is a cogent argument for why, given the inherent logical inconsistency in Rossi's utterances as reported and commented on ECW, that place can only get worse - or at least stay at the same level of fantasy - rather than get better. Its raison d'etre is to comment on Rossi's work under the premise that Rossi's statements are broadly to be trusted. Time, and a larger number of "broadly to be trusted" statements make this a bigger ask.

However my statement was different this, merely that having swallowed the ECW fantasy you really cannot get out of it. That is obviously literally untrue - there are people who after initial enthusiasm see the absurdity there and get out. It is true in the sense that ECW has constructed a self-sustaining world which requires a suspension of critical faculties to join, and therefore which no contrary evidence can affect. Maybe [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] will have a public bust-up with Rossi and I will be shown wrong by Frank A announcing to all that he was wrong and all ECW believers agreeing. I rather doubt that.

So this matter relates to the one aspect of the thread here that is on topic and, for me though maybe no-one else, serious. This site has the possibility of being something different from ECW where the arguments about LENR and its detailed evidence can be explored from both sides with respect and without censorship-induced lack of challenge. The fact that mostly only believers or trolls will be attracted to any LENR site can be balanced by the fact that only a few non-believer non-trolls are needed to make the cogent opposite case. But that does not work if site rules ban them, or make them feel that honest expression of views will be unwelcome.

And, I take your point that this is just my view, and I have neither right nor power to determine what happens here. However, under rules as they now are, I can argue this case.