The Playground

    My 2cents.


    I am going with stopping some ALL of this but agree this is the playground. It's not that you are smart men. Its that you somehow took it out to the parking lot. At least keep it here. I am clear I mean keep some shit posts here. Shaiteposting in threads does not show respect. I get that. WE ALL GET IT BY NOW OKAY?
    I am sure ( that at least one of you can come back a step) and recognize that this LEADS no where. Let me put it another way okay?
    I think MY got tired of saying you are wrong on the Internet Rossi saga, and started saying you are an idiot. The conversation changed to attack/attack.
    But MY is not some NWO paid whatever. He is passionate in what he believes in. Take a fuggin step back and quit shitposting in threads.


    This is not about science anymore, its about perceiving that other person does not respect your opinion. It is unprofessional.


    Just sayin,

    Abd, you have a great capacity in analysing context and looking into
    the deeper ground of the things (poor English, I'm sorry). You will know what I mean.
    But you can't fight fire with fire. It's going to an escalation, insulting, ranting, calling names and unmasking personal items, like real names and so on. It's called doxxing or something like that.


    There are the believers, there are agnostics and the deniers.


    Flooding the forum with page long analysis will IMHO not help.
    Believers will not be convinced, agnostic people can't decide with the current state of research/information/public papers and deniers will simply ask for independent replication.


    My wishes:
    Do shorter postings, concentrate to the most interesting point.
    Don't feed the trolls.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    I may be the most widely-trusted general writer on LENR (setting aside certain scientists).


    The big problem with this statement is that when someone receives money for doing something, it's not normal to hide the source of the funds. By declaring an interest, others can judge whether your writing is unbiased or not, despite any reassurances to the contrary, that one is entitled to write whatever they chose... Well... We all like receiving pay cheques.


    (My guess is Lattice energy)

    Or to look at it a different way, 'It keeps a person honest', so that it can't be used against them.


    And sorry. At the end of the day, it's no-ones business but your own, and I didn't mean to sound so accusatory, but if you're claiming most widely-trusted author status, it's probably a good point to address.

    Quote from bang99

    Do shorter postings, concentrate to the most interesting point.

    Thanks. You don't understand what I do. I study and write as I study. I examine ideas. I don't start with a "most interesting point" to express. I do that in a very different kind of writing, in polemic. Most of what I write is exploration and report of what I find. It is not designed to efficiently convince. You can follow me, looking over my shoulder, so to speak, or not. When I do this with a topic, I become familiar with it and later, as needed, can write polemic.

    If I am correctly reading between the lines and inferring authorship here (note the punctuation and grammar), one gets the sense that Rossi might be acknowledging that the customer was not exactly a normal customer:



    (Via Peter Gluck's blog.)

    Quote from "Abd ul"

    Thanks. You don't understand what I do. I study and write as I study. I examine ideas. I don't start with a "most interesting point" to express. I do that in a very different kind of writing, in polemic. Most of what I write is exploration and report of what I find. It is not designed to efficiently convince. You can follow me, looking over my shoulder, so to speak, or not. When I do this with a topic, I become familiar with it and later, as needed, can write polemic.


    Well, I do understand. Let me summarize it for you; what you are saying is that since your mind is so confused to begin with, you have no clear idea about what you are writing and where it will lead you, which makes it impossible for you to comprehend what is "the most interesting point".


    The funniest part is that you hold your "analytic" abilities so high despite this ... Considering your so called "training" this immense lack of self-awareness is somewhat amazing.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    If I am correctly reading between the lines and inferring authorship here (note the punctuation and grammar), one gets the sense that Rossi might be acknowledging that the customer was not exactly a normal customer:



    (Via Peter Gluck's blog.)


    'He' should at least stop using "Cheers" and "Regards" every time he uses a sock puppet. He is so sloppy with indicators of authorship, it almost makes one think he is trying to get caught with all these fake posters. No doubt in my mind that he is trying to push the agenda that the customer is not important, unfortunately for him this tactic does not fool those outside of Planet Rossi and it surely will not fool anyone in court.

    Quote from stephenrenzz

    'He' should at least stop using "Cheers" and "Regards" every time he uses a sock puppet. He is so sloppy with indicators of authorship, it almost makes one think he is trying to get caught with all these fake posters.


    Whatever is going on, I think Rossi's intelligent enough and interested enough in what other people think to know that some suspect him of being the author of some of the questions that are posted to his web site under different names.


    Quote from stephenrenzz

    No doubt in my mind that he is trying to push the agenda that the customer is not important, unfortunately for him this tactic does not fool those outside of Planet Rossi and it surely will not fool anyone in court.


    My current thought about the customer — it was a pretext used to justify leaving North Carolina, where Leonardo Corp. was easy to keep tabs on, for Florida, where they could proceed as they wished without needing to justify not coordinating closely with IH.

    The Rossi self-question phenomena does shed some light on Rossi's motivation. My hypothesis (and it is only that) is that for Rossi what matters is that others believe him, and he has a very unsophisticated idea of what will sway his audience. That makes sense of the self-questions, and also of Rossi's many other scientifically vacuous demonstrations and his running blog commentary.


    In terms of IH he might have thought that the license agreement was all about him giving IH dramatically effective results, of the sort that have served Rossi himself so well, and that scientific validation is not the point.


    That viewpoint does not itself imply deliberate fraud (though other facts may as IH claims show that). Rossi could be 100% convinced himself that his effect had already been proved and therefore no scientific validation is necessary. His struggle for validation is then a struggle to convince a hostile audience, and this is done by dramatic effect, not by scientific rigor.


    Of course, avoiding scientific rigor is equally what Rossi would do if he knew full well that his stuff does not work.


    This matter is further complicated because people can often have strong unconscious motivations which they are not consciously aware of. In this case a fear that rigorous testing would destroy his "magnificence" could easily be repressed, and actions motivated it be rationalised by Rossi in other ways.


    That sounds like psycho-babble and possibly is - but while the Freudian revolution of the 20th century has been in many ways discreditted and transformed - its starting point that poeple are complex and have motivations for behaviour that they are not consciously aware of is as true now as it was when Freud first popularised the idea.


    Regards, THH

    "Scientific rigor" lol


    Nice meme to describe a fossilized cult that goes in circles in its own limited paradigm, because acknowledging there are unknown unknowns nevertheless operating, is much too terrifying (and tenured scientists lose their piece of the stale cake then).
    "Omg we can't explain it therefore it must not exist, here's 10c a post, keep on shilling forever"



    Scientific rigor mortis, more like
    Even has several meanings:




    Hey you deliberate cockscienceblockers, how does it feel to be an enemy of the human species, science and art?


    Litterally ontological traitors, since human genius has to evolve and create
    Satan as the "obstacle" comes to mind... :^)

    Quote from Eric Walker

    If I am correctly reading between the lines and inferring authorship here (note the punctuation and grammar), one gets the sense that Rossi might be acknowledging that the customer was not exactly a normal customer:


    Yes, most likely is a self-talk episode for planting excuses in the minds of others. What does the customer matter anyway?


    Here's why it matters.


    1) If there was no customer, then AR lied to IH to get them to move the plant to FL.
    2) It was perpetuated as a real customer through Mr. Johnson's record of energy provided to the "customer."
    3) The confidentiality of the customer's IP was used as an excuse to prevent access to IH.
    4) If IH was paid, then probably they were paid by AR with their own money.


    In short, the non-existence of the customer is proof positive that this was a scam.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Jack Cole

    In short, the non-existence of the customer is proof positive that this was a scam



    IH said in their counterclaim that it is a *fact* that Rossi, or someone associated, actually owned this JMP. As you said, that would mean Rossi and his lawyer lied to IH. It should be very easy for IH to prove the Rossi/customer connection in discovery...if they do not have that proof already. I may be wrong, but that should be the end of this under the "unclean hands" law doctrine?


    If not and goes to trial anyway, the JD lawyers might try this on the jury: "if the customer ain't real, there is no deal". :)

    Quote from Shane D.

    If not and goes to trial anyway, the JD lawyers might try this on the jury: "if the customer ain't real, there is no deal".


    This is far easier to present to a jury than some complex calorimetric argument which could bore them to tears.


    Watch for Motions for Summary Judgment when there is enough evidence in the record -- or crucial evidence for one side or the other shows up missing after adequate discovery.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
    I see no reporting facilities here, i.e., a simple way to request moderator or administrator action.


    David Nygren and AlainCo are admins, and barty might be an admin as well. They can be reached using the direct message facility, either individually or as a group.


    How as a group? Yes. There is a list of admins, and AlainCo is the one who invited me here. I feel awkward asking a friend to act. It feels like abusing the friendship. So a collective address or process would then serve the whole community, without incorporating some bias ab initio, by whom is asked. There could be a forum for process issues, with the idea that all administrators would follow it. I suggest, actually, a mailing list.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    How as a group? ... a collective address


    Not sure if this addresses your initial question, but from a narrow technical standpoint, you can send a direct message to multiple people by clicking on the "New Conversation" submenu beneath the "Conversations" menu at the top of the page.


    I am not a fan of this forum software. I wish the forum owners would consider something like Discourse: https://meta.discourse.org/.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.