Clearance Items

Quote from JedRothwell

Frankly, it is rude for you to assume that we are dishonest, we see the contradictions, but we do not admit they are real. I assure you, I do not secretly agree with you about F&P, so stop saying I do.

Let me reiterate this has NOTHING TO DO with the technical aspects of Ascoli65's technical claims. Whether he is right or wrong about F&P is irrelevant to the point I make here.

I am saying that he should not accuse people of intellectual dishonesty. That is what he does when he demands we "admit" we are wrong. That has to mean we secretly agree with him and we don't want to say so. That is off base. Ascoli65 should be censured for that. I wouldn't ban him, but if I were a moderator I would warn him to stop that because it is rude and it violates the norms of academic discussions.

This is not the first time he has done this. Many of his other messages are similar violations of academic norms, and the norms of polite discussion. There is a world of difference between saying "you are wrong" and "you actually agree with me and you are lying about your own views." He has also accused people of dishonesty in various other ways, in other messages, without any evidence for dishonesty.

Quote from JedRothwell

Let me reiterate this has NOTHING TO DO with the technical aspects of Ascoli65's technical claims. Whether he is right or wrong about F&P is irrelevant to the point I make here.

I am saying that he should not accuse people of intellectual dishonesty. That is what he does when he demands we "admit" we are wrong. That has to mean we secretly agree with him and we don't want to say so. That is off base. Ascoli65 should be censured for that. I wouldn't ban him, but if I were a moderator I would warn him to stop that because it is rude and it violates the norms of academic discussions.

This is not the first time he has done this. Many of his other messages are similar violations of academic norms, and the norms of polite discussion. There is a world of difference between saying "you are wrong" and "you actually agree with me and you are lying about your own views." He has also accused people of dishonesty in various other ways, in other messages, without any evidence for dishonesty.

I took the verb "admit" from the Shane D. quote I was referring to and the contradictions in the F&P paper on the 1992 boil-off experiment are evident, as I have largely explained in the closed threads. All the rest are your assumptions: I didn't use neither the word "lying", nor "dishonest".

Quote from JedRothwell

Let me reiterate this has NOTHING TO DO with the technical aspects of Ascoli65's technical claims. Whether he is right or wrong about F&P is irrelevant to the point I make here.

I am saying that he should not accuse people of intellectual dishonesty. That is what he does when he demands we "admit" we are wrong. That has to mean we secretly agree with him and we don't want to say so. That is off base. Ascoli65 should be censured for that. I wouldn't ban him, but if I were a moderator I would warn him to stop that because it is rude and it violates the norms of academic discussions.

This is not the first time he has done this. Many of his other messages are similar violations of academic norms, and the norms of polite discussion. There is a world of difference between saying "you are wrong" and "you actually agree with me and you are lying about your own views." He has also accused people of dishonesty in various other ways, in other messages, without any evidence for dishonesty.

Evidently, the closing of my threads it's not enough for you.

Quote from Shane D.

We welcome skeptics for their constructive criticisms...emphasis on the word "constructive". They are not invited here to provoke and shame us for believing LENR exists, as Ascoli is increasingly resorting to doing.

Where did I "shame" you for believing in LENR? My previous post to you was explicitly referring to specific contradictions present in a specific F&P document, as JR urged the skeptics to do (1). Which other way has a skeptic to contribute constructively to this forum? Should I rise only unsounded criticisms so that JR can easily refute them?

Quote

Show respect for our opinions, and we will do the same in return.

I'm criticizing what I found wrong in the LENR literature, not your opinions and, contrary to some L-F members, I'm do it respectfully.

(1) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

Quote from Ascoli65

I took the verb "admit" from the Shane D. quote I was referring to and the contradictions in the F&P paper on the 1992 boil-off experiment are evident, as I have largely explained in the closed threads.

Please untake that verb. No one is admitting anything. You have repeatedly accused people of intellectual dishonesty. As I recall, you also accused some of us of actual dishonesty, and you repeatedly accused F&P of knowing they were wrong. Which is to say, you accused them of perpetrating a fraud. That is way, WAY over the line. It is one thing to say "they did not realize they were making a mistake." It is entirely different to say "they knew, and they did it to take money from Toyota."

Quote from JedRothwell

Please untake that verb. No one is admitting anything. You have repeatedly accused people of intellectual dishonesty.

JedRothwell : You should simply ignore our Russian Hot-Fusion troll Ascoli. The Russian Ascoli has a mission not an opinion! You do not discuss with a person - you argue with/against a pre canned set of arguments. Such virtual www instances are just a waste of time... Never try to educate a stone!

Quote from Alan Smith

Your permanently off-topic posts are a PITA. They have (as above) zero to do with Rossi's blog posts which are the subject of this thread.

I started posting here yesterday (1) and all my comments were more or less explicitly related to the Ecat. It was Rossi, who said that he was "inspired by Pons and Fleischmann".

Quote

In future such deviations back towards your groundless obsession with foamgate will be moved into 'Clearance Items' whenever they appear in an inappropriate place.

Are you saying that I'm allowed to cite F&P only into the "Clearance Items" thread? I was there when you directed me to start a new thread on my own to talk about F&P experiments (2). I did it (3) and in a few weeks you decided to close it down (4).

Or are you meaning that it is forbidden to criticize the F&P results, unless using the same weak and/or wrong arguments used for years by other skeptics and that JR and oystla were/are able to easily refute?

If it is still possible, here on L-F, to discuss about the F&P experiments, may I suggest to reopen the thread dedicated to this subject? I just saw that, after 2 weeks from its closure, it surfaced again among the top five "Hot Threads" (5), scoring almost hundred visits a day. It probably means that there are many members and guests who are much more interested in the arguments treated in "F&P experiments – 30 years after the CF announcement", rather than in the many other threads started in the meanwhile.

(1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

(2) Clearance Items

(3) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

(4) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

(5) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/

Quote from JedRothwell

You have repeatedly accused people of intellectual dishonesty. As I recall, you also accused some of us of actual dishonesty, and you repeatedly accused F&P of knowing they were wrong. Which is to say, you accused them of perpetrating a fraud. That is way, WAY over the line. It is one thing to say "they did not realize they were making a mistake." It is entirely different to say "they knew, and they did it to take money from Toyota."

Please, cite references.

Quote from Shane D.

I don't remember exactly when, but I do remember having to retreat to my safe space. So it must have happened.

You are misremembering, I never shamed you (singular and plural) for believing in LENR (or for any other reason).

I checked all my comments on L-F. The word "shame" appears only in two comments of yours in which you accused me to shame some LENR researchers (not the believers) for their role in the Ecat affair. In any case, in my replies (1-2), I explained you that this was not my intention.

The only time I invited someone to be ashamed, it was not for his believing in LENR (3).

Anyway, Shane, consider that you are always at risk of an unlucky typo!

(1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

(2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

(3) FP's experiments discussion

Quote from Alan Smith

You can start another F&P thread if you wish, but unless you have made any new discoveries I doubt anyone would be interested. But off-topic foamgate posts in other threads (like this one) are headed for clearance. As are the ones above and this one. So don't do it any more.

OK, thanks. I hope this time will be allowed to fade away by its own as any other thread.

MSM~

https://newatlas.com/nuclear-f…hd5kQFYGMRH7gEzjqm8SPf_gE

Just an other method to produce neutrons.... We really don't like.

DnG Yay for pyroclastic flows, one of nature's most spectacular, immutable, destructive and implacable forces.

There was a show I saw many years ago about an elderly couple who were volcano experts (vulcanauts they called themselves) and their dream was to witness a pyroclastic flow. Their dream came true, and they were incinerated.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

DnG Yay for pyroclastic flows, one of nature's most spectacular, immutable, destructive and implacable forces.

That's just weird seven,, stop it.