Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax: Trying to build defense for Rossi

    Alan Smith, I personally feel it is not "good practice" as a super-moderator discuss a user that you think is "Symptomatic of monomania". Moderating is hard enough, and should not be personal to users. Maybe it would better would be to say, that this is the line (in green/red) and you crossed the Rubicon. Just trying to be helpful.


    I find the passionate responses on all sides getting too heated, he (Adb) has salient points. I really do not want to drive him away. He is self-aware enough to take a step back. Skipping the verbosity, his writing on the case is informative. ->This taking it personal as some people are IMHO is counter productive to all.


    So I am clear, I am not trying to attack you. We as a honest LENR community frankly do not need an echo chamber here. There is another website for that.
    I want to see new ideas and Rossi is very hard to believe after all this time. We just need to cut the BS. Your highlighting in green is informative enough of boundries being crossed.


    He has his own website that he can self-moderate, just as the all the modmins here can do. We should tolerate a disagreement. How about we appeal to reason with the users?

    • Official Post
    Quote from Rigel

    Alan Smith, I personally feel it is not "good practice" as a super-moderator discuss a user that you think is "Symptomatic of monomania". Moderating is hard enough, and should not be personal to users. Maybe it would better would be to say, that this is the line (in green/red) and you crossed the Rubicon. Just trying to be helpful.


    Thank you Rigel, your opinion is both valued and welcome. Let me be clear. There is nothing personal about this, I see that one user here is making a stream of screen-size posts which actually (at the most basic level of analytical reading) contain very little information, and not much of that in any sense new. This is without doubt damaging this forum. It is intended to be a space for technical LENR discussion, something which is actually being driven out by constant repetition of a few facts, much more opinion and guesswork, padded out with irrelevant personal anecdotes about a court case over which we have no control or influence. We are losing members while this goes on unchecked.


    One does not have to spend 1000 hours gazing into a mirror to see that the spirit of free comment that is one of the cornerstones of this space is being used to damage it, and to wonder just how 'agenda free' this is.


    I won't be around for a lot of the day - feel free to respond, I welcome it.

    • Official Post

    Alan,


    Seems to me you are trying your best to ruin a good thing. LF seems very robust, as evidenced by it's growing popularity over the past year. There is a reason so many have flocked here, and it is not only because of the technical discussions, or in spite of the gossip and innuendos. They both together, make a certain synergy.


    So, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! ;)

    Quote from LFH Sam

    The lawsuit can be interesting and important to discuss, by all means, but if anyone is fully convinced that the reactor did not produce energy, why would that person then focus hour upon hour discussing (in twenty different forums) whether a 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder reactor was used. This is not rational behavior.


    Unfortunately it's very rational if you consider they are shills -as you implied-, but what boggles the mind is the sheer dedication they put in it. It doesn't boggle it anymore though, if they're helped by software, or are even complete bots


    Look at bots on Monsanto's facebook page for example, and message them: hard to tell they're not real humans, software has been passing Turing tests for a while now. Check their fb pages: they have photographs with friends, family... Isn't Abd always talking about his family? don't his avatars show members of his "family"?
    It's one of the tricks widely used to make people think a bot or botted user is a real person: he has relatives! cat pictures! cares about stuff! is vocal about it!


    Now, maybe Abd isn't a complete bot (has anyone met him? know trustworthy people who did?), maybe he merely inputs stuff in a software that produces posts, and puts some human salsa afterwards, changing sentences, adding/removing stuff. There are others who do this here I believe, the "gadget did not produce 1MW heat that would have cooked people alive, did I tell you about white rice?" spammers come to mind.



    Welcome to hell! and a very nasty curse on the people who manage bot operations

    Alan Smith "I won't be around for a lot of the day - feel free to respond, I welcome it"
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    It makes sense that it is not personal, to summarize - the concern given by mod/min/some users consensus seems to be, that the long narrative lacks information and can be repetitive. The point of concern being that it is driving away members.



    I like his posts, but I often jump ahead if it is what I call “Adb Lite*”. that said, I see that the posts can be too long. At the same time, I admire his stream of conscious writing style.
    But now we in the soundbite era. Even the cliff note version of the Odyssey is too long.


    Anyway, what to do.


    Since he is always kind even rational when he is p*off. Appeal to him on what you and the other mods are directly concerned with. Ask him to limit columns to maybe 4-5 inches (the size of a hand). And ask him to maximize the content of that work space. With his knowledge and vocabulary he is more than able to do this. If he feels the need to expand, then use a URL to redirect to his complete idea/post on his thoughts on his new website. He knows how to use most web tools at an advanced level.
    He might be hurt at this message but his strong reasoning will come out. As a last note his personal life details and travels make him more real and readable.


    The strongest plea I can make is simple to understand. We would be far weaker if we lose any poster as long has they do not violate the terms of service. And especially one that adds value. His work on the Rossi case is in-depth and amazing.


    * note to Adb, take some of this to heart, disregard any that you find hurtful as it is not meant to be. It is a response to ensure that we keep a vibrant poster in the forum. If I was to say anything to you directly, it would be that your intelligence shows though your writing alone. But "like most of us- me excluded naturally" you need to work on your humblebrag ;)


    Final thought Alan. I do not see how any reporting on the Rossi/IH case can be any shorter and still contain the information. So with case related info, we need complete analysis. Hope you had a good day.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cul…urprise-hit-in-China.html


    'Mentally ill' James Joyce is a surprise hit in China



    There is a growing recognition that stream of conscious writing style is a product of mental illness. Many wonderful works of the mentally ill are appreciated by many because of their unusual and out of the main stream nature. The disjointed logic in the stream of conscious writing style is most likely a product of a disturbed mind.


    http://www.academia.edu/1362532/Madness_and_James_Joyce


    The schizoid writing style is a rare talent that few have managed to effectively control. I don't beleive the Lomax has gotten his writing style under control quite yet.


    Hi Axil. We are all crazy to a certain extent, you, me, Abd, the Pope. But it is better form not to mention it. Alan.


    • Official Post

    Thank you Rigel. I think your comments useful for sure. I understand that sometimes tedious legal points take up a lot of 'column inches'. However, is there really a need to repeat them over and over in anything up to 6 threads? And does the the relentless denigration of Rossi's mental health, career path and taste in neckties really need to be dragged out in almost every post? For me- and my emails tell me that for some of the ordinary members as well as those senior to me here, the general atmosphere of negativity created adds very little to the ambiance of the forum. And our post count is dropping. Some valuable contributors have vanished over the last few months.


    A further point. Abd claims to welcome discussion- but anyone whose views differ from his own can expect to be bullied at wearisome length. This is not a good way to behave.


    But never mind, perhaps Abd's remarkable powers (which he never tires of telling us about - also at length) will enable him to see that his behaviour is not helping to progress the LENR cause at all, no matter what technology might be used. I live in hope.

    Quote from Rigel

    Appeal to him on what you and the other mods are directly concerned with. Ask him to limit columns to maybe 4-5 inches (the size of a hand). And ask him to maximize the content of that work space.


    It's a matter of style vs. pile.


    But in case of ABD it reminds me more of telling a tale to childrens.., thus everybody can understand it.


    Let's call his style bivalent.


    But if you can't afford the time, his writing often (not always) is an annoying flood of words...

    • Official Post

    When ECNs first started, Popeye/Joshua Cude overwhelmed the site with walls of text too. Very, very long posts, and many of them. Hard to read too. There was an outcry, as here with Abd, and Paul Story (admin) responded by limiting him to 5 posts a day. Joshua found a way around, and ECNs was the better for it. Abd, if restricted similarly, will find another way...other than his attempts to divert us to his own website, to get his voluminous, yet interesting, opinions across. You just can't stop these guys. :)


    And thank goodness they somehow find a way to stick around, as you, I, LF, and LENR in particular needs these type personalities. For whatever reason you get irritated by them...get over it. Lots of room here for all. Yes, even moi. :)

    axil. I remember several times years ago when you were personally attacked. I think it was on Ecatworld in the beginning. It went like this (who are you to say. what is your background, you do not know shaite etc.) I do not know if you remember this. The point I made at the time was it is the quality of the posts. The science you made and the references to back it up.


    Adb is a valuable voice in this community. Don't you ever get tired of people attacking you? When you stick to science you are at your best. Much like Zep. But disagreements should not be taken personal unless they are out of bounds. Certainly you have experienced this-->shaite. Cause no harm is very simple to me. Help and educate is something you do quite well. Many people some be enjoying a pileon. I am not one, I enjoy healthy conversation with people I respect. I lose respect when people do not care about the content of their words.


    He hears our voices very well. He will listen. We need to be helpful not harmful.

    Quote from Rigel

    axil. I remember several times years ago when you were personally attacked. I do not know if you remember this.


    He hears our voices very well. He will listen. We need to be helpful not harmful.


    Lomax has mentioned me in 66 of his posts and not many were compliments. He has also mentioned Peter 118 times and Peter is too good natured to respond in his self defense. Unrequited bullying is offensive to the amity and comity on this site. I am only trying to turn Lomax from his trolling ways as the moderators here on this site are also disposed to do. We owe it to Lomax to at least try to help see the benefits of good fellowship and a pleasant nature. I have interacted with Lomax over the years and he has never suffered from a good nature, but hope springs eternal. I would be content if Lomax would leave me out of the content of his posts which I am not disposed to read.

    axil.
    Thanks I am sorry that you are attacked or even feel it. You spend a decent amount of time supporting and backing up your references. You do not shoot from the hip. I have always noticed that you have sloughed it off. For me seeing this in you it was/is the high road. Adb is reading these threads, he will compensate. If he has mentioned you 66 times. He will see the need for either corrections or honest apologies. Like he often says (paraphrasing here) life is educational. Now that he knows he will try, it is in his nature.


    I want to ask you not to give in or up.

    • Official Post

    @Dewey Weaver


    What i am 'at' is moderating, somebody has to do it now and then. Basically as a moderator I am not obliged to explain, however since you are such a nice chap I will make an exception The post (yours) I deleted was a 1 line attack on another member's opinion, essentially devoid of useful content and (mildly) offensive. Nobody has a right not to have such posts removed. It happens all the time.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Dewey Weaver


    What i am 'at' is moderating, somebody has to do it now and then. Basically as a moderator I am not obliged to explain, however since you are such a nice chap I will make an exception The post (yours) I deleted was a 1 line attack on another member's opinion, essentially devoid of useful content and (mildly) offensive. Nobody has a right not to have such posts removed. It happens all the time.


    Moderation is best when trusted by the community. That requires that, not only moderation be fair and balanced, but that it appear so. A moderator who appears arbitrary and/or biased can heavily damage a community.


    Nobody likes being censored. So anything that smells like censorship would best follow a policy and procedure that makes it clear that censorship, per se, is not the purpose, and a moderator acting to enforce this, if policy and procedure is clear and functional, need not "explain." But generally will explain, at least briefly, because simply deleting someone's content without notice or explanation provides no learning opportunity. It is not a lot of work to do it right.


    In this case, the moderator would know that the deletion could be controversial.



    Yesterday, when I posted "WTF?", there were no dislikes, only two likes. So, on the face, three members liked the post and one did not: the moderator.


    This is not a claim that the moderator was "wrong." Rather, the appearance is of whim, easily biased. For writers, the greatest injury is arbitrary and unnecessary deletion of what has been written. Most of us do not keep copies of what we write here. So deletion of content should, particularly on request, be accompanied by, at least, emailing the content to the author, who may publish it elsewhere if they choose, and who may, off-forum or by private message, share it with anyone interested. That is easier than the response quoted here, but it takes caring and caution, and if someone cannot be arsed to care and to be careful, I suggest that they should not be moderating, or should be moderating in strict accordance with clear policy.


    I do not recall what Dewey wrote. However, deleting content by Dewey is roughly equivalent to deleting comment from Rossi. That is, that Dewey has an opinion or attitude or reaction is, itself, worthy of notice, and the same with Rossi. These are people making news, creating reality and matters of consequence.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    I do not recall what Dewey wrote. However, deleting content by Dewey is roughly equivalent to deleting comment from Rossi. That is, that Dewey has an opinion or attitude or reaction is, itself, worthy of notice, and the same with Rossi. These are people making news, creating reality and matters of consequence.


    There might be some truth in what you say, though my own view is of a forum as being somewhat more democratic, in that every voice has equal weight. In the case of short posts intended to merely provoke however, removing them is like picking up litter in the street, a community service.

    Alan may be allergic to long posts, so, though this is not terribly long and is all on-point, perhaps someone will summarize this for him.


    Quote from Alan Smith

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    There might be some truth in what you say, though my own view is of a forum as being somewhat more democratic, in that every voice has equal weight. In the case of short posts intended to merely provoke however, removing them is like picking up litter in the street, a community service.


    Alan, your words are not consistent with your behavior. It is obvious that some voices have less weight to you than others, because you consider their expression to be "litter." On Wikipedia, the post of administrator is often represented as "wielding a mop" that that is what admins do there and it is an often thankless job. However, on WMF wikis, no ordinary administrator can actually delete content, they can only hide it from general public view, and, in theory, policies prevent oversighters -- who can remove content from administrator view -- from doing this without strong legal necessity. And developers, who can actually remove material from the database, simply don't touch it, as far as any case that has become known. There are administrators who will, on request, provide copies of deleted content, unless there are strong reasons (generally legal reasons) not to do it.


    I have pointed out that it is not necessary to censor to protect, and you could easily remedy the situation here, far more easily than arguing about it.


    Your view of a forum is not democratic, it is authoritarian. Real democratic organizations establish process to create and maintain order with high public consent. Authoritarian organizations impose it, top-down. Both can be functional, but the authoritarian model is generally losing out, in the real world, because it's hell to maintain. Genuine consensus is trivial to maintain, because many hands make short work. I am not, here, mentioning what has been proposed to improve lenr-forum.com, but a summary would be that it's largely been ignored, though recently there have been signs of possible movement, not realized yet.


    So, looking at the specific case, it is fairly obvious what Dewey's comment would be about. If I'm wrong, of course, Alan could show this, easily, publically or privately. Dewey was almost certainly responding to this comment:


    Quote from damn_right _man

    I think, this is pretty close to spamming and being self-assured, that once's one opinion must be repeated all over all subs. Especially, You, Abd, can save a lot of time, effort and nonsense in either all the time defending Your opinions of an old thread in a new one and on the other hand, just spamming repeatedly.


    I had written the comment quoted, in Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax: Trying to build defense for Rossi which was a response to an earlier post of damn right man:


    Quote from damn_right _man

    a reason for posting such big comments, which do nothing but simply just relepeat, what You aready told to Abd in almost ALL the other subs here, too ?


    (The software does not quote the post header (a bug, my opinion), which was "Is there really." The "big comments" then was addressed to SelfSustain.


    damn right man's comment was quite rude and apparently intended to suppress comment (and not my comment, that of another, who does not necessarily agree with me) When a new discussion arises, and a topic is raised that has been addressed elsewhere, in a tightly organized forum, responses would simply refer to the other location. This is almost never done, however, almost always the arguments and facts get repeated. More troubling here, is the accusation of "spamming." That accusation has been made on e-catworld about relevant references to lenr-forum. Frank Acland has never supported this position, as far as I know. Every post of mine there must be approved, and he routinely approves references here, and has recently approved references to coldfusioncommunity.net. In this case, this thread was started by an administrator here, who felt the CFC posts mentioned were worthy of reference, and there seems to be some general agreement on that.


    Alan, you have here acknowledged that the comment was "(mildly) offensive." So too was DRM's comment. But I suspect that DRM's comment was much more in line with how you might personally think. This, then, leads to selective enforcement, with all the damage that can ensue from that. Selective enforcement is not much of a problem when it is trivial to undo damage. And if one wants to avoid complicated and time-consuming process and discussions, a simple remedy has already been suggested, which you apparently continue to ignore. How about just doing it? Email Dewey with the deleted content. If you can't do that, for some reason, say so. You could, alternatively, email it to me, I know you have my emaiil address.


    The more general issue is site policy. See http://coldfusioncommunity.net/hello-world/#comment-27 and that discussion to the end.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

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