The Playground

  • I doubt there is much or any astroturfing in the Rossi v. Darden thread (only one person comes readily to mind as a possibility). As has been repeatedly pointed out, one would have to be a little off to pay someone to post here, for it will bring very little return on their investment. The most salient feature of that thread, viewed after the fact, will likely be the naivety of wishful people, who will ignore any information that conflicts with what they want to be true.

  • Sorry, I've been too much focused on alternative facts. There's really no point to use astroturfing to try and prevent a disruptive technology to appear on the market, from the point of view of cartels who already profit from the market this disruptive technology might appear on.
    Also, it boggles the mind why a company would try to influence, through social engineering, the outcome of a justice decision about whether or not they can profit from this disruptive IP worth trillions

    It's like on Monsanto's facebook page. All those people defending this company and singing its praises, are all real civilian with real identities, genuine family photographs, etc...


    Nobody ever lies on the Internet, especially when there are enormous financial interests at stake!

  • There is little chance IH will have any luck influencing a federal jury by paying someone to astroturf here. Any members of a jury panel from which jurors are being selected at the start of the trial will be thrown out if they have followed this case or if they have any opinion whatsoever. And jurors that are selected will be instructed not to do research on the case. I'm going to wager that if they ignore the instructions they'll either be removed from the jury and replaced by an alternate, or there will be a mistrial.


    The only person that readily comes to mind when considering possible astroturfers in the Rossi thread writes there to support a viewpoint that I assume you would view favorably.

  • This makes sense: there's no way judge and lawyers will be trying to find out outside info about this IP affair which seems out of this world. And there's really no way the jury will try to get outside info as well, because everyone respects what they're told to do and not do, especially when it comes to such a fantastic lawsuit.

    Also, people never talk to their friends, so those friends will never try to find outside info either, about Andrea Rossi, Cherokee/IH, LENR, Cold Fusion, etc. Therefore, those friends won't say anything about what they've not read online about all this, to the people involved in the trial.


    I really like the logic of "It's not pleasing to live in a dirty environment, that's why people don't throw garbage in the street"

  • Any information that the judges and lawyers obtain from this site (I assume very little, apart from leads for following up on for evidence) will go through deliberation in court and be subjected to withering arguments by opposing counsel. At that point you just have reasoned argumentation, and it doesn't matter where that comes from.


    Jurors who intentionally disobey the instructions of the court will no doubt provide the grounds for a mistrial upon appeal, and if there is any hint of juror bias, this will be looked into by the losing party. Do you disagree?


    Rather than astroturfing, what we see is strong evidence of people being attached to what they want to believe and disregarding all kinds of warning signs. It is indeed an interesting case study in psychology from that perspective.

  • Also, it boggles the mind why a company would try to influence, through social engineering, the outcome of a justice decision about whether or not they can profit from this disruptive IP worth trillions

    Do you realize just how small this forum is? Add to that what Eric Walker said about the jury selection process.


    If there really are trillions on the table and IH were truly malicious they could probably have Rossi disappeared pretty easily and everyone would assume he ran with the money. Or simply buy/threaten the jury, both these things would be a lot easier than manipulating a forum through social engineering, hoping that a jury member defies instructions, googles "E-Cat" and ends up here and on top of that is affected enough to sway the trial. It's just not a rational course of action.


    Edit: or they could just pay rossi. trillions minus hundreds of millions is still trillions. bam.

  • Physical assassination is of course easier, cheaper, way more convenient than character assassination, and there's zero risk to face justice, just like when trying to buy a jury. Thanks for clearing that up!


    Also, jurors who look for info on the Internet will undoubtedly say they have done so, because they've been told not to, or will be discovered to have done so, because browsing history is readable on people's faces.


    Are we entering quantum states of logic here?

  • 1) Not if Rossi is right when saying they seeded his IP. It then goes beyond a simple money issue.

    2) Just as unlikely as Monsanto having hundreds of fake facebook accounts to try and whitewash their business... it's not like Cherokee is a company and would like to come out of this affair without a dirty halo, if not directly influence the outcome of the trial

  • I don't know enough about the case to dispute (1), maybe someone else does.

    2) Facebook isn't a tiny corner of the web dedicated to enthusiasts of an obscure technology that Joe and Jane has never even heard of. The only dirty halo on cherokee/IH will be that they were so easily fooled by Rossi, and they won't save face by winning the trial.


    Edit:
    To expand on (2). I don't know anything about monsanto astroturfing, but that seems plausible because the end goal is to influence public opinion (the same public that buys their goods) and whitewash a very tainted brand (which matters because people care about the food they buy). What the peasants think is not nearly as important for Cherokee and IH, and influencing opinion here is not likely to affect the trial. The situations are not comparable.

  • Roger, I think the possibility of astroturfing cuts both ways ― both from IH and, possibly as or more likely, from Rossi, and in both cases obtaining little ROI for the trial. Any astroturfing would likely be for PR purposes, outside of the trial. And probably not much of it exists, if any. But we can still be upset by people presenting cogent arguments that work against the conclusions we wish to hold onto and suspect that it's for that reason astroturfing.

  • Any astroturfing would likely be for PR purposes, outside of the trial

    Agreed. IH is not trying to take control of the narrative here to influence the outcome of the court case but simply to manage the impressions of the LENR enthusiast community. Anything short of a full legal victory for Rossi can be spun to support IH’s narrative. That's easy enough to spin but they need also to establish a narrative that puts them in the best possible light: "We are angel investors who are so committed to making the world a better place that we’d even prostitute our own mothers if there is even a 1% chance that it would make the air safe for Chinese babies to breathe. And that conniving fraudster Rossi almost ruined it by taking advantage of our pure intentions and gentle souls." But they also want to be able to spin a Rossi victory as an unfair decision, just in case.


    You see, if they want to position themselves as the saviors of LENR and maintain an active role in the LENR community and the trust of LENR researchers, they have to maintain a positive image no matter what happens with the court case. I don't think it's at all mysterious or even necessarily nefarious. Just sound business strategy and S.O.P. these days.

  • Quote

    Anything short of a full legal victory for Rossi can be spun to support IH’s narrative.


    I don't think it's at all mysterious or even necessarily nefarious.


    And as we see here anything short of a full victory for IH (possibly even that) can be spun to support Rossi's narrative...

  • And as we see here anything short of a full victory for IH (possibly even that) can be spun to support Rossi's narrative...

    This is a classic example, from THHuxleynew, of a logical fallacy that has been very common here: namely, that an attack on IH equates to support for Rossi. As I've said many times, I do not support Rossi's narrative. I think he has behaved like a snake.

    • Andrea Rossi April 20, 2017 at 8:02 AM

      JPR:This morning we are making an experiment, testing the device to allow the QuarkX to be able to
      work either with battery or with AC power source, like a computer.
      Warm Regards, A.R.

    Yes, Prof. Dr. Ing. PhD director A. Rossi!

    You're a real wizard!

    Your knowledge about electronic technology is AMAZING!

    And your followers made a real big discussion about it on your blog.

    Cheers and Godspeed!


    BTW: for testing such a device, of course there will be again a nuclear engineer on site?