The Playground

    Quote from ele

    Also is well known that on a scientific basis humane races do not exist. We are all humans....... except Racist of course.


    I'm sure we can manage a sensible discussion about this without people promoting the superiority of their own (so-called?) race, or some mother hen getting their knickers in a twist... So I thought the above quote sounded like nonsense, but a googling reveals many articles that basically agree. Some that even attempt to describe the "science".


    'Science' is in shock quotes because I have a feeling that a lot of those articles come under the banner of 'social science', a title which (having studied it once) reminds me of the type of countries that feel the need to add 'democratic' to their names.


    But anyway... It kind of seems obvious that, just like there are landraces of canis familiaris or cannabis sativa, there's something similar going on with humans - i.e in-bred/stable differences due to environmental adaptations or reproductive isolation drift.


    There's this Nature article which probably sheds some light on things (but reading it makes me feel like Mary must when she reads a LENR paper - lots of strange graphs and big words, or whatever her usual excuse is)...


    But there's at least two qualified zoologists here... So what's the craic, chaps?

    Edited 4 times, last by Zeus46 ().

    Shane D - Defending Siffe' and Kev in the same cycle I see- they don't need your help but surely must appreciate your compassion.


    Kevmo is stringing everyone along with fodderchumbaiting - he made his own case against himself and just lost his own argument (with himself nonetheless - you don't see that very often on Planet Rossi). Fits a typical pattern though which makes it not boring.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Shane D - Defending Siffe' and Kev in the same cycle I see- they don't need your help but surely must appreciate your compassion.


    Kevmo is stringing everyone along with fodderchumbaiting - he made his own case against himself and just lost his own argument (with himself nonetheless - you don't see that very often on Planet Rossi). Fits a typical pattern though which makes it not boring.


    I only had a problem with your comment about the moderators. They seem to be doing a very good job lately.

    Zephir_AWT


    Sifferkoll has an extreme case of fact bending. He is clever, and industrious, so he does it well. You need however to hold exactly his tenets or you see the massive and unlikely conspiracy theories he proposes as what they are.


    It is understandable that Sifferkoll sees Eric as unfair. Eric's stated aim (which as far as I can see he operates pretty well) is to chuck off anyone who personalises arguments, unless they are non-anonymous and close to the action. The only one of those we have seen is Dewey, whose egregious personal attacks are a bit weird (though fun, because he comes across as a humourous guy playing a bully rather than anyone seriously trying to distort the debate). Dewey does not get banned because he is Dewey and does occasionally have direct from close to IH facts to impart. Sifferkoll finds this policy difficult because his whole argument rests on conspiracy theory in which actors are personalised with imputed bad motives, and he comes on here to insult others. So Siffer gets chucked off pretty quickly.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    If you had been a moderator?


    Yes, if the policy were to stop personal attacks weighing against that only contribution in posts without the fact that Dewey as somone close to IH could on rare occasions provide additional insight.


    The fact that I mostly detested the posts of the people he attacked is not the point...

    Quote from interested observer

    The notion that Mary refuses to become informed about LENR is believer mythology. What that really means is that she refuses to interpret the claims in the same way as believers.


    I read the above quote and wondered to myself how someone could, in good faith, arrive at that conclusion. It seems some people just can't see the wood for the trees. I'll try to explain why I disagree, by analysing one (full, unedited) post of Mary's. But as all avid fans of Mary know... These sentiments have been repeatedly expressed in similar form, many times over.


    MARY WATCH



    From here (link). Mary in bold.



    "I browsed it and it seems to me Celani's extremely long and mostly uninformative report does NOT say he used multiple wires to increase output."


    It DOES say he used multiple wires to increase output - but, because you quickly "browsed" through it, you missed this.

    If you purposefully fail to take in information, all texts will, by definition, be "uninformative".


    "It says he tied knots in the wire or wires. God knows why."


    Slide 15. It's right there, underneath the title in big red letters: "Importance of "non-equlibrium" and "knots". Seems you missed that too.

    For me, the purpose of reading a document like this to be able to answer these sorts of questions for myself.


    "Celani is singularly unimpressive and I hate to waste time with him."


    As of today you have spent seven days discussing Celani's work. Several cropped screenshots. Multiple posts. Offered two uninformed opinions, whilst accusing me of doing the same once.... And today it became apparent (link) that you still haven't read it properly. Talk about a real "waste of time".

    I genuinely don't understand why you chose to do this instead of just taking 10-15min to read it properly.


    "He still failed to do the one extremely obvious thing which would have improved his results... if they are real... [snip]


    My goal, when reading Celani's slides was to form an opinion of my own as to whether it's "real" or not.

    Your goal seems to be to find excuses not to read it. A classical augur of pathological skepticism.


    ...... which I very much doubt."


    .......Told you.


    "I was going to go back and read the end of the paper with more care but I have decided it is not worth the time, like many things LENR*."


    But, by choosing not to read it, you missed all of the important information: Classic LENR, classic Mary Yugo, classic trolling.


    "Your sarcasm is hardly appropriate since you seem to always misinterpret what you read... assuming you read it at all instead of just excreting your uninformed opinion about it."


    You aren't nuanced enough to misinterpret, and -Oh! The Irony: You just spent seven days doing exactly what you accuse me of... This is precisely what I mean when I describe you as 'lacking insight into your condition', a notorious sign of illness, and the reason why I feel people are entirely correct in using the word 'pathological' to describe your version of skepticism...




    * Still think Mary refusing to become informed about LENR is "believer mythology", Blinkered Observer?


    Celani report: https://www.researchgate.net/p…-loading-deloading-an.pdf

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