I was looking at EGOOUT on 11/13 (post dates are 11/13--11/14) and it quotes you at length but then in the next post it says you are not the post author. I re-read the post as it is in your style. I just can not understand why someone would post with your name and in your style. The post is not controversial, I just do not understand the motive.
I have also noted that Brian Ahern has said he also post that was not his on Vort. Why in heck would someone go to this trouble? This is not just a rhetorical question it seems bizarre.
And thanks for the work reporting on the case.
You're welcome. That was trolling, and the motivation may have been pure trolling, we have some of those creatures around and there could be a darker intention. It was my style, all right, possibly exact quotes in part, but then something added that I would not write, and even what I did write, somewhere, I would not have written there. I have no desire to poke Peter, who was an old friend. Rather than attempt to justify what I actually did wrote, let's say that context matters and the context was I was attempting, more or less last-ditch, to wake up someone who has fallen into some traps. But it's his life and his blog and I wouldn't have poked him like that with no particular necessity.
Here is what the troll wrote, with my comments:
Peter said: "Abd, please abandon empty and useless rhetorics and answer to ACS! In a way it is your duty too."
Looking at this today, I realized that the Peter comment was not form above. Where was it from?
The day before. Notice that this post has the "u" capitalized. That is not how I prefer to write it, but I got stuck with that on Facebook and from using Facebook logins, it is that way in a few places. I normally use a google login, which is how I responded to this on Gluck's blog. it's "ulRahman." So I found the original post. At first, I wasn't certain. I might have written something there, I will see what I can find. But I will start with them, then come back to that post quoted above.
RG November 12, 2016 at 12:29 PM
The most important meme relating to data is, "data speak to me."
Peter Gluck November 12, 2016 at 12:44 PM
yes, my friend- however speak forme, for my truth too...in one of the cases described
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax November 13, 2016 at 10:57 AM
Here Peter gives us a blizzard of invalid reasons. To put it bluntly, this shows that I am right, and he is wrong. Gluck is again demonstrating lack of clue. He's been falling for it for years.
I want to sit down with you Peter, because I know your history and your heart. You got stuck, it happens, and it's tragic. Maybe, in person, I could get through to you. Text sucks for this.
November 13, 2016 at 11:15 AM
Abd, please abandon empty and useless rhetorics and answer to ACS! In a way it is your duty too.
Peter had not given, here a "blizzard of invalid reasons." That was written for somewhere else. And I would probably not use "iinvalid" bald, like that.
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax
November 12, 2016 at 8:34 PM
As far as I can tell, nobody other than you thinks LENR+ is a thing, and I think I'd probably know.
November 12, 2016 at 11:10 PM
But 'LENR not plus' i.e. PdD classic definitely is
a thing- then why even you are NOT answering to that dreadfully negative and hopeless paper apublished in C&EN and to the release of the American Chemical Society?
Why nobody (except Randy Mills) is NOT showing that hydrino energy and cold fusion are different species?
You peersonally are good and have a cionsustent rhetorics only when you deny, but you are so silent now when you cpuld drfrnd the essence ofCold Fusion. Do you and your friends in thinking mode agree that CF died in 1992? What differentiates you from a demoralized defeatist?
Peter fell for it. I'm not surprised. The troll used pieces of what I'd written, precisely to stir Peter up. I just checked. I do not have a linked Facebook account to Peter's blog. Only the google account. So the differing user name nails it. I didn't write that stuff in some sort of delerium and forget it. I didn't write it at all (except that pieces of my text have been put together.)
This one also establishes it: "As far as I can tell, nobody other than you thinks LENR+ is a thing, and I think I'd probably know."I wrote "I think I'd probably know" about IH paying people for blog comments. That is, I know many in the field that might be candidates for such a job, me being an obvious onem, and I have seen no clue of it. But about "nobody thinking" something, that would be just plain stupid. How could I possibly know that? I might have said about LENR+ not being a thing, if so, it was unguarded and perhaps a bit of blarney. It is for some people, and that is precisely why I would not add the "probably know" comment.
I checked. I did not find any other posts with the faked user name. Back to the troll, for the explanation. My emphasis:
Forget the ACS. It is not important -- Nobody cares about it. What's important is to finish the process against Rossi. You need to answer the questions about Exhibit 5: Why you discount eyewitness testimony in favor of wishful thinking and interpretation of Rossi Says, and so far, why you have not acknowledged the problem of pump location -- that I've seen.
Not only would I not say that about the ACS, my goal is not "to finish the process against Rossi." My goal is to establish cold fusion research as legitimate, mainstream, and fully funded. Rossi is basically toast, already. He did this to himself. He essentially forced Industrial Heat to defend themselves, and I could go on. I cover the case because it is of interest, it is the first truly major case involving cold fusion IP. The Rossi affair contains many lessons for the future. And I'm a writer, like Sir Edmund Hillary climbed mountains, because they are there. I happen to know the topic, and then I study it and know more and write about it.
On Planet Rossi, the claim is that I'm a paid shill for IH. The same is claimed about Jed Rothwell, and Peter has been a bit friendly to those ideas, and began attacking Jed, in particular, going way beyond the pale. I attempted to head this off privately. Peter essentially trashed his relationship with the CMSN community over this. It's not about supporting Rossi, it was about attacking a long-term and highly valuable volunteer! So, yes, I was hard on Peter. I still hope he will recover. But I would not have rubbed his nose in it like this troll did.
The goal of the troll is to establish that I have a strong anti-Rossi agenda, with a desire to "finish" him. I hope to prevent damage, but that is the extent of it.
Peter you are actually confused, but, yes, it results from your obsessions, possibly. I know that for myself, at 72, an additional factor shows up, fear of "losing it." If I react to that fear without clearly identifying it. I don't resist The S word... Senility. It is just your paranoia.
I am not sure that I wrote those exact words, but something like that, and a while back. What I wrote about "fear of losing it" is real. What I wrote about fear and reacting to fear was what I talk about much. What I know is that at my age, -- Peter is only a little older -- fearing senility is useless and can exacerbate it. But "rage, rage against the dying of the light," only rage doesn't work, it didn't work for Dylan Thomas, what works is living passionately, every moment, extracting the last of it ... and fully accepting reality.
And what "reality" means is not necessarily what most people think.
In any case, the troll knows who he is, and reality will handle him. He can't hide from reality. Trying to stir up an old man, doing his best to remain active, caring about something, and attempting to create hatred and opprobrium .... he will get his, it always comes back.