In fact there was excellent news for Rossi, as allspoliation claims (as predicted to 100%) were wiped off the table andthe final Jury date has been agreed on.
I do not think so. I believe the spoilation MTD will be considered later this month. One judge rejected it but the top judge will consider it. Perhaps I misread the court document.
I'm sure it was a misinterpretation of what information is available.
Lets hope so!
Eric WalkerI am sure it was. But why and by whom?
Perhaps barty, AlainCo or David Nygren will clarify the matter.
Eric Walker just can't hide his anti-LENR, ANTI-ROSSI bias, I don't understand how you let this guy become a moderator, he acts like a textbook paid apco troll. He doesn't even acknowledge the existence of LENR.
If you cannot contribute constructively to this conversation, your time here will be quite short. I suggest you avoid the whole paid troll thing. Consider yourself warned. Eric
No joke, I had a vivid and highly memorable dream about Mary last night - I woke up genuinely terrified and relieved to be awake (and thankfully without facial bite marks).
I was debating writing a full account of it, but ultimately it's far too dark and malevolent to recount in public... Proper Nightmare on Elm Street stuff.
In fact, now that I mention it, there were some amusing parallels to certain aspects of those films, [Um, nope I was thinking of The Candyman...] however, I still don't think we need that level of insight into my psyche.
Pray do tell! I would very much enjoy reading about it. If you feel it is not suitable for a public forum then please PM me. Thanks.
I'm surprised you can put your clothes on by yourself in the morning. You can, can't you? PS: dead people can't sue for damages nor can anyone on the behalf. Not to mention that I am not releasing any of Papp's sordid records because I never saw any. I am not even reporting facts about Papp! I am simply reporting an anecdote about what someone told me. Hear say. Also you seem to have lost track and wandered into the wrong thread. Anyway sue me. Give it a try. I am terrified.
Hi Mary! I had not realized you had a new account. What happened to the old one? Was it banned? You seem to have all sorts of problem maintaining accounts. I am sorry to see this.
You should not be terrified Mary. You know I will always be there for you, calorimeter in hand. Please come back Mary. I miss our calorimeter ANalysis sessions. They were so much fun!
Hi Roger,
I'm Rigel, I'm no one really but I have an interest in LENR and keeping people in the discussion. We seem to be a self-serving crowd that likes to provoke without reason. Sometimes we can discuss LENR related topics as adults. Do you have anything that you think about calorimetry that you would like to bring to the table? If you wish to talk about accounts I have had several accounts over the years either -> Rigel or Rigelnew (after the upgrade) and Rigel4 on OU.com but no other accounts that I am aware of, do you wish to talk about accounts or LENR?
Display MoreIf you want to ban astroturfers and shills how do you go about that?
Wyttenbach has declared me a shill for the APCO astroturfers on his site.
No evidence just Wyttenbach has a feeling.
So does that mean I should be banned?
If I was to declare that joshg was a shill should joshg be banned?
I honestly agree with Eric that my common sense tells me APCO are not infiltrating this website.
If they were monitoring it they may well come across some useful snippets dug up by the busy bees here, but I would not be surprised if they are not even doing that.
IH have decided to stay silent (other than Dewey with his florid threats) this seems a sensible approach given the court case.
On the other hand it does seem evident that Rossi uses sock puppet accounts and may have one or more for accessing this site. But even if I knew for a fact this was true and which accounts it was I would not ban those users, it all adds to the fun. Nor do I think Dewey should be banned, his insights are valuable and mostly appreciated.
People should only be banned for being offensive or especially rude or doxxing, or otherwise disrupting an energetic and hopefully civilized discussion.
Zena, just two flaws in your assessment. APCO is infiltrating this website and Dewey is IH,
Wyttenbach, welcome back. Please do not troll this forum with the whole APCO astroturf schtick unless you can muster more than circumstantial evidence. What you mention here, hoping someone will "out" himself, is not going in a good direction.
I believe it is barty, AlainCo or David Nygren that sends out the emails. I'm sure it was a misinterpretation of what information is available.
Eric, The whole Idea behind "astroturfing" is not to leave evidence behind. Companies like APCO, and there are many, do not send out the first bozo they find willing to take money for spreading falsehoods and lies. The operatives in question are hired for their talent and go through rigid and involved training so as to come across as sincere and knowledgeable posters, whether on facebook, twitter or here on LENR Forum. The fact is you would probably never know it if one posted here and if you thought you did they probably aren't. You should not be surprised that when nearly $270,000,000 is at stake folks will go to great lengths to influence the outcome. Even though I've heard it expressed here that LENR Forum is too insignificant to be bothered with in this regard, I disagree completely. If someone becomes newly interested in LENR, perhaps because they've seen a chance reference in a magazine, on the internet or because they are being considered as a juror in a trial involving same they're probably going to google it out of curiosity. In that case this is one of the first four or five places they'll wind up, and companies like APCO (and many more) will also know this. Their whole approach is extremely well thought out and targeted.
Rionrlty , your argument is generic and circumstantial. What is needed to support an accusation of astroturfing at this point is evidence that is specific and direct, rather than vague and circumstantial. Unless you have such evidence, an accusation of astroturfing is a weak one that merely implies that there are people here that are saying things that you don't like and don't want to hear. I suggest to the contrary that the circumstantial evidence for astroturfing of "pro-IH" views is weak and unlikely and that your views are merely fringe. An accusation of astroturfing is ultimately an ad hominem argument, which is something that people without a better argument fall back on.
In the case of Wyttenbach, above, he went beyond a mere vague accusation of astroturfing to imply that whoever sent out that email was an IH troll. That kind of suggestion without concrete evidence will get people into trouble.
The APCO astroturf stuff definitely rubs me the wrong way, as I've been on the receiving end of similar accusations on more than one occasion in the past. Accusations which were patently false from my own perspective. They are a distraction that sidetracks otherwise productive conversations. Allowing them to flourish gives a podium to people with fringe views. Anyone who succumbs to the temptation of raising the alarm and attacking forum members as APCO shills without bringing forward concrete, credible evidence risks a warning.
Your allegations of bias are noted. They will probably have little affect on how things are handled absent credible evidence of APCO astroturfing.
Eric, I hope you don't mean that APCO is not allowed to be mentioned at all here as part of some scenario? They are included in one of the Dardens mail distribution list in court docket.
What I see in this forum is that here can be detected patterns and activity that does not any more fit in to just personal interest category by any measure. It is clear that all LENR related forums have also both trolls and astroturfers. I'm not saying that it is especially APCO people nor even IH:s or Rossis paid trolls, they can be individuals having other motives as well.
I have mentioned Putin trolls earlier as an example and how trolling and stroturfing is pretty damn hard to spot and many times impossible to prove.
To open peoples eyes, here is as an example link to very carefully fine tuned video that 'borrowed' clips and music from same source (watch this video first):
Then compare it to video respecting same original material differently (look full video).
External Content
www.youtube.com
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Difference: All real (biggest artillery in Europe) firepower related clips left out from first one to make it look like that army is mostly individuals or teams at max. running in forest equipped only with their personal guns. It is not about staging anything, but more about which parts you choose exclude.
Eric, many of these can't be proved water-tightly. They just looks suspicious, but ruling them out as just conspiracy theories is simply non credible especially in playground thread. Of course ones should be able to discuss respectfully without bashing or name calling etc. even having different opinions.
I just re-read my year old analysis about Marianne Macys blog article (pointing out tone change in 'The Lawsuit' chapter, and even it is just my opinion, I still found no reason to change word of it - before this play is over...
I can understand your scepticism Eric. How would a convincing evidence look like for you?
Eric, I hope you don't mean that APCO is not allowed to be mentioned at all here as part of some scenario? They are included in one of the Dardens mail distribution list in court docket.
If you want to discuss the possibility of APCO astroturfing, please bring direct and concrete evidence. A discussion that relies on vague generalities will not be fruitful at this point. An unbacked assertion or suggestion that a specific forum member is an APCO astroturfer, which is usually the context of the APCO astroturf discussion, is merely an ad hominem attack that serves to impugn the integrity of the forum member and has no value here unless it is backed up with concrete evidence. If such a suggestion is dropped casually in conversation without being backed up with concrete evidence, it will get the accuser in trouble.
What I see in this forum is that here can be detected patterns and activity that does not any more fit in to just personal interest category by any measure. It is clear that all LENR related forums have also both trolls and astroturfers. I'm not saying that it is especially APCO people nor even IH:s or Rossis paid trolls, they can be individuals having other motives as well.
I do not deny the possibility of astroturfing. But if anything, I have seen evidence of astrotrufing from Rossi supporters. Everything seems pretty normal to me from the IH side. Again, we need concrete evidence to move this discussion further.
Eric, many of these can't be proved water-tightly. They just looks suspicious, but ruling them out as just conspiracy theories is simply non credible especially in playground thread.
Let's let our suspicions be suspicions until we have concrete evidence of something more. Vague ad hominem arguments over ground that has been plowed over and over are of little value at this point.
I can understand your scepticism Eric. How would a convincing evidence look like for you?
It doesn't even have to be convincing evidence; just something concrete. Perhaps something along these lines: "what was this email about in the court case between you (such-and-such forum member) and APCO, where they said they would hire you to post pro-IH views on LENR Forum? Can you explain yourself, because it sure seems like you're here to make it look like there's grassroots support for IH, when really you're just being paid to do this."
Yeah, that would be a smoking gun. I just have the feeling a company like APCO is too organized to leave a trail like that.
If they really astroturf here...
"APCO is infiltrating this website". You state your opinion as if it is a fact. You need to distinguish the difference.
APCO may or may not be infiltrating this site.
I see no evidence and think they have bigger fish to fry, but that is only my opinion (you see the difference there).
"Dewey is IH". Yes, that is an acknowledged fact.
This means that Dewey can be a valuable contributer, unfortunately mostly he seems to post florid insults with not much information.
I think if APCO were paying attention to this site they would probably ask Dewey to back off.
"The whole Idea behind "astroturfing" is not to leave evidence behind."
Well then we are heading towards conspiracy theory land.
APCO/space aliens have infiltrated and we know this because they leave absolutely no evidence, so that proves it. 
What I will say is that I am of the view that this site is too insignificant to bother with, albeit interesting to "we happy few".
However I have slightly shifted my view when some poster (may have been joshg) pointed out that any jurors may run an LENR search and discover this site. That does make sense.
I still don't think it warrants a significant APCO effort. In fact I think most people not interested in LENR would be put off by the huge amount of verbiage for the small amount of facts.
Personally I want an open debate and am pleased to have moderators from all opinions such as Rends, Alan, Eric etc.
The efforts of some to target certain moderators, such as Rends or Eric is something to be resisted in my view.
APCOAstorturfShillPaidBotAISockpuppetFUDInfluenceAPCO again
I think if APCO were paying attention to this site they would probably ask Dewey to back off.
I remotely remember Dewey talking about that he was asked to back off from this forum on more than one occasion.
He never said by whom though.
TrueTrollman - your APCO shill remains swill. It is shattered, in tatters, splattered all over Planet Rossi.
I remotely remember Dewey talking about that he was asked to back off from this forum on more than one occasion.
He never said by whom though.
I remember that too. I took it to be an informal suggestion from the IH side or possibly a lawyer recommendation.
If APCO were trying to "manage" this site and wanted Dewey to back off they I think they would insist that Dewey backed off. So the fact he continues to post suggests to me that APCO are not "managing" this site.
In fact the main protagonists against Rossi are, in my view, Jed, THHuxley and Sigmoidal.
Their arguments are logical and evidence based, using facts and quotes from Rossi himself.
So I see no reason for APCO to get involved, Rossi is providing enough evidence on his own.
