FT Alphaville : So, Neil Woodford invested in a cold fusion company (by Kadhim Shubber)

  • in FT Alphaville a post by Kadhim Shubber about Woodford Fund investment in LENR


    https://ftalphaville.ft.com/20…in-a-cold-fusion-company/



    Here’s a weird thing: in May 2015, Neil Woodford invested £32m of his clients’ money in a company working on cold fusion. Here’s a similarly weird thing: no-one seems to have noticed or talked about it. There isn’t a single story in the UK press, or any other press, about the City’s most high-profile fund manager investing in a widely-ridiculed bit of fringe physics.


    ...


    Quite negative...

  • My critique of this article is at http://coldfusioncommunity.net…on-passes-for-journalism/
    I do quote the entire article, which, aside from U.S. law allowing Fair Use, violates their copyright. Because lenr-forum.com may not enjoy the Fair Use exemptions (I'm not at all sure about this) one might want to be careful quoting what I wrote there to avoid more than brief excerpts from FT.com. My own comments may be quoted here for purposes of commentary, or comments on CFC are welcome.

  • My critique of this article is at http://coldfusioncommunity.net…on-passes-for-journalism/
    I do quote the entire article, which, aside from U.S. law allowing Fair Use, violates their copyright. Because lenr-forum.com may not enjoy the Fair Use exemptions (I'm not at all sure about this) one might want to be careful quoting what I wrote there to avoid more than brief excerpts from FT.com. My own comments may be quoted here for purposes of commentary, or comments on CFC are welcome.


    Edit: this is hilarious: I wrote a courtesy notice to the author, as a comment. The site would not accept it because comments had been closed. That was fast.... This is what is there at this point:



    Ah, just fascinating. This was completely irrelevant to the story, in fact. Woodford did not invest in Rossi, but in a company that had invested in the technology, before the Woodford investment, that, I'm sure, told them what is now public knowledge from Rossi v. Darden. So all that mishegas about Rossi this and Rossi that was, in fact, trolling, attempting to control the conversation to Favorite Topic, a toxic one.


    There is reference in comments to a Citywire story from May:
    http://citywire.co.uk/money/wo…it-by-fraud-claim/a911347


    That story presents "fact" from the lawsuit. Basically Rossi's claims. It calls IH a "Woodford tech holding." Technically yes, but a holding that was probably already with no assets to speak of other than the Rossi licence. Woddford did not invest in IH, but in IHHI (which owns IH, but which will not be responsible for IH debts unless it has guaranteed them). Most comments there seem to assume what Rossi claimed in the suit or in his blog:


    Quote

    While the first two payments were made, Rossi is now claiming the $89 million payment, arguing the 350-day test had been proved successful.


    He argued that Industrial Heat’s claim to the intellectual property behind the device had been crucial to its fundraising.


    ‘Industrial Heat, [president] Darden and [vice president] Vaughn were able to raise substantial sums of money from numerous investors including, but not limited to, approximately $50 million from the Woodford funds (including Woodford Patient Capital and Woodford Equity Income) predicated upon their claims that Industrial Heat… had “acquired Rossi’s intellectual property”,’ the lawsuit reads.


    One commenter has this:


    Quote

    John via mobile May 18, 2016 at 04:16
    The real scandal here may have been done by Tom Darden (industrial Heat, aka Cherokee Investments). He also applied for patents for a device similar to Rossi's, and he duped the Chinese for over $100 million.


    The real scandal here may have been done by Tom Darden (industrial Heat, aka Cherokee Investments). He also applied for patents for a device similar to Rossi's, and he duped the Chinese for over $100 million.


    All derived from Rossi claims. IH did apply for at least one patent, which was simply normal business, the device demonstration was about to be published by the Lugano team, and filing a patent application was necessary to preserve any IP rights. A patent application is not any kind of certification that a device works, and this was in 2013, before IH had an opportunity to do their own extensive testing. As to the Chinese, there is, so far, no credible evidence I have seen of a Chinese investment in IH; however, the Chinese have much active LENR research under way. And maybe some Chinese company was formed. But it likely doesn't have to do with Rossi technology, as such. There were Chinese visitors to the Doral plant, but the question would be what Darden told them. Rossi has claimed that Darden used the "successful test" to promote investment. I think he made that up, he didn't know. The Chinese investors were not accompanied by any IH representative, as far as we know.


    From what I know about the Doral plant, it would not have inspired me to invest a nickel. Okay, maybe a nickel, maybe even $1, if I got a framed certificate. That would have been fun! As long as the dollar went to genuine LENR research. In fact, come to think of it, I've been investing about five years of my life. Before my retirement, my time sold for $90 per hour. So I've invested a lot. But not in Rossi, as such. In the whole field, very little was, for a long time, coverage of Rossi, except to periodically notice that there wasn't any sustained independent confirmation, and other obviousness.


    (The moderator did eventually delete Mary Yugo's posts.)

  • I am amused by Abd's claim that Woodford did not invest in Rossi. That's like claiming that investing in GM does not include investing in Chevrolet. As for the remainder of IH's portfolio after disposing of Rossi, the only high power claimant is Brillouin which for all intents and purposes doesn't look much different from Rossi and Defkalion. So far, all they have are claims. If IH (and Woodford) vetted them as rigorously as they did Rossi, they probably got snookered again!


    ETA: As far as Woodford being told by IH about Rossi's history:


    - If they did not pay attention to it, they were negligent


    - If they were aware of it and did not understand it, they were incompetent


    - If they were aware of it, understood it, and still invested millions without conducting a proper test, then they are knowingly investing their members' money in what amounts to below-junk level bonds and they are misrepresenting the fund to their members to what is IMO a criminal level. Especially if investing in the highest of all possible risk companies is not the stated purpose of the fund and is not properly divulged in their prospectus... and I am sure it is not. I really hope that when Rossi crashes and burns to the ground, the investors will make sure that Woodford's malfeasance gets the publicity it needs.

  • I am amused by Abd's claim that Woodford did not invest in Rossi. That's like claiming that investing in GM does not include investing in Chevrolet.


    Obviously, "Mary" is easily amused. It would be more like saying that investing in Ford does not include investing in Edsel. None of the Woodford investment went to Rossi or Rossi technology, and that's the point. (And part of why Rossi was so pissed about this.) It's all for LENR research. The real stuff.


    Quote

    As for the remainder of IH's portfolio after disposing of Rossi, the only high power claimant is Brillouin which for all intents and purposes doesn't look much different from Rossi and Defkalion. So far, all they have are claims. If IH (and Woodford) vetted them as rigorously as they did Rossi, they probably got snookered again!


    My understanding is that IH is not a major investor in Brillouin. That's other people.


    Quote

    ETA: As far as Woodford being told by IH about Rossi's history:
    - If they did not pay attention to it, they were negligent


    - If IH did not tell them, they were failing in their obligations as investment managers.


    Quote

    - If they were aware of it and did not understand it, they were incompetent


    I'm quite sure that they were aware of everything that you know, and plenty you don't.


    Quote

    - If they were aware of it, understood it, and still invested millions without conducting a proper test, then they are knowingly investing their members' money in what amounts to below-junk level bonds and they are misrepresenting the fund to their members to what is IMO a criminal level. Especially if investing in the highest of all possible risk companies is not the stated purpose of the fund and is not properly divulged in their prospectus... and I am sure it is not. I really hope that when Rossi crashes and burns to the ground, the investors will make sure that Woodford's malfeasance gets the publicity it needs.


    They have not invested millions in some device. They have invested in a company that is funding research, and the expectation is clear that this will lose money, probably for a long time, before making any, if ever.


    Basically, "Mary," you are totally clueless but believe yourself competent to judge the competence of others. Rossi going down in flames would not harm Woodford in the least. It effectively already happened.


    Woodford's investment does not depend on Rossi claims at all, and that is why your comments on that page were, as predicted by the author, trolling. Totally off, spinning out on some poor writing but missing his central point (which was general lack of news coverage).


    There is one possible relevance to Rossi, but the implications are quite different from what you can conceive, apparently.


    IH owns -- as possibly its only significant asset -- a hedge against the possibility of Rossi actually coming up with something real. That makes investment in all the rest of LENR much safer. IH essentially killed the danger, by buying it! I.e., 50% of it. If Rossi did pull it off, IH would become fabulously wealthy. Notice: they may have valued the IP at about $200,000, this is in the promissory note issued by IPH to IH from the assignment. Not the $10 million they paid for it. What is that hedge actually worth?


    You may well personally believe it is worthless, but these people are highly successful with long shots. They lose money reasonably often. You may think they are "wrong." But overall, they make money, and lots of it. And you sit where? Doing what?

  • So as not to give Rossi more attention than he deserves, I won't copy his comment from last night in which he responds to this article, and claims IH had no other IP rights than Leonardo's (Ecat), when Woodford made their $50 million investment. If true, and that is a big if, it might mean IH did not divulge to Woodford their own, by then well established, doubts about the Ecat.


    Or it could mean Woodford was informed of IH's inablity to duplicate, doubts, and went ahead with their investment anyways. That is the more plausible scenario, as Woodford admitted doing a 2 year due diligence when their investment was first brought public.
     
    Or, of course, it could simply be Rossi trying to start a fight between IH and Woodford to distract attention away from his own legal problems.


    In last nights comment he also answers to a question many of us have had, when he says IH "paid the invoices" for at least some of the energy provided by the 1MW plant. IH shows one of those invoices in their exhibit, but nothing to show they ever actually paid. According to Rossi, they did pay, so now we supposedly know.


    These revelations...if true, may provide some fodder for the last Rossi hold-outs, but I don't see them helping Rossi, or hurting IH, in the the suit/counter-suit. More a FWIW thing.

  • Shane D - WIF is a deliberate, patient and intentional investment group that can occasionally place money on promising technologies which have the potential to change the global status quo. Rest assured that WIF was fully informed of all risks in the IH portfolio, especially those associated in dealing with Rossi. You would probably also like to know that Rossi / JMP begged for IH to invoice them for the "power" "sold" to JMP. IH wisely and intentionally never crossed that bridge for the obvious reasons.

  • In last nights comment he also answers to a question many of us have had, when he says IH "paid the invoices" for at least some of the energy provided by the 1MW plant. IH shows one of those invoices in their exhibit, but nothing to show they ever actually paid. According to Rossi, they did pay, so now we supposedly know.


    Hold on now. I thought those were requests for invoices. In other words, Rossi did not want I.H. to pay, he wanted them to bill for the money. That might be considered legal evidence that energy was delivered.


    Did Rossi say I.H. paid? Or did he say I.H. invoiced and JMP paid?

  • Jed,


    This is his comment:


    Roslyn Abrams:


    Woodford visited the plant during the test in February 2015 and in September 2015: when they invested 50 million dollars in IH the sole license and intellectual property that IH had was the one of Leonardo Corporation. The top level officers that Woodford sent to visit the plant during the test had at their disposal the first and the second querterly report made by the ERV. The fourth and last quarterly report, as well as the third, were substantially equal to the first and the second. IH has also paid the invoices related to the first, the second and the third report of the ERV. Eventually, they did not pay the fourth report, because they said it was not correct. But it was equal to the former three, related to the period during which IH collected funds from their investors. At the end of the second visit to the plant of 1 MW during the test, in September 2015, the senior officer of Woodford said to me the following precise words: ” Congratulations, Dr Rossi, we saw great stuff here”.


    Warm Regards,A.R.

  • Shane D. wrote:


    Hold on now. I thought those were requests for invoices. In other words, Rossi did not want I.H. to pay, he wanted them to bill for the money. That might be considered legal evidence that energy was delivered.


    Did Rossi say I.H. paid? Or did he say I.H. invoiced and JMP paid?


    No, this was misunderstood. From the blog:



    The misunderstanding first: The "invoices" Rossi is referring to are invoices from Penon, not invoices for power (which IH would not pay, if they invoiced, they would be paid.)


    Dewey is saying that IH did not issue those invoices. I disagree, however, that it would have caused them a legal problem. Rossi already asserted the jurisdiction of the Florida court based on the sale of power there, and IH did not object to that. If IH had invoiced, making it clear that they had not certified the power measurements, but were invoicing solely based on JMP representation of delivered power, they would have been legally safe, my opinion. Whether they had doubts or not. And, of course, if JM Products had requested a refund, because they billed based on fraudulent representations from Rossi, IH could then have chosen to refund it, or to offset it against their own damages from JMP's misrepresentations, pending resolution. If properly invoiced, it would have created no presumption that the power was actually delivered.


    If they did not invoice JMP, that would be a red flag to Rossi that something was awry, for sure.


    Yes, Woodford saw "great stuff." Looking at those videos of the plant in Italy, I think, My God, what an amazing enterprise! At that point, Woodford had already invested in IH, and it had been ensured that the investment was not in Rossi technology and not vulnerable to Rossi claims. Yes, IH stood to make a fortune if the Rossi technology worked, and IH owned that License, but .... Woodford did not put their money into paying the remaining license payment, but in a company close to home, in England.


    Uh, didn't Rossi just comment on facts relating to the case?


    Rossi either is quite unclear on the events that happened in 2015, or he's sloppy in what he writes, or .... he's just making it up. Woodford invested in May, 2015, when there was only one Penon report, probably. And they saw that customer area. That setup would have totally spooked me, and if IH had told me glowing things about the running of the plant, rather than what they, by then, knew, I'd have flown home with "too bad, they are idiots."


    Woodford would have access to the best experts. Whether or not the Woodford reps were experts themselves, they'd have been told about the elephant in that living room: where does all that heat go? Through a hole into a wall, open above, with no signs of duct work to move that heat out?


    Woodford went back in August (not September), already having invested in IHHI (not IH). While IHHI has the same management as IH, IHHI is responsible to its investors (including Woodford). My sense is that IH is the operating company for IHHI. IHHI is where the money is. IH owns the 1 MW plant and also owns IPH, which then owns the License and would collect license fees, if that were ever to happen.

  • The misunderstanding first: The "invoices" Rossi is referring to are invoices from Penon, not invoices for power (which IH would not pay, if they invoiced, they would be paid.)


    Abd : May be you should read post before you answer them...


    There is no misunderstanding first! It's your sole intent to double post the important findings (IH payed Penon and only Penon!), which is cheap boulevard style...

  • Quote

    Rest assured that WIF was fully informed of all risks in the IH portfolio, especially those associated in dealing with Rossi.


    Properly informed of the risks? Why would they invest without appropriate testing, if properly informed? C'mon Dewey. How hard is it to demand a proper and conclusive test performed by a reputable testing lab or agency before investing $50 million?! Or before IH's $10M for that matter. You really think it made sense to do a one year test? Of what amounts to a collection of unrelated parts and garbage? Which had never been tested properly before? Without Rossi participation?


    Look where this negligence and incompetence has taken IH. You don't think Jones Day, one of the most expensive legal firms in existence, is doing IH's extensive and voluminous legal work (probably into thousands of billable hours) pro bono do you?

  • Abd,


    Good catch. My bad. By the sound of it, Rossi is saying Penon billed (invoiced) IH for his 4 quarterly reports, and IH paid the first 3 only. Just so no one is further confused by this already confusing story, Rossi is NOT claiming JMP paid IH for the energy the 1MW supposedly produced, as I erroneously said.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

    Abd : May be you should read post before you answer them...


    There is no misunderstanding first! It's your sole intent to double post the important findings (IH payed Penon and only Penon!), which is cheap boulevard style...


    This is my guess as to what Wyttenbach is talking about Shane copied the blog post and so did I. However, I was writing my comment while Shane posted. This Forum does not warn that someone else has posted, so if that was an error, it's due to the software. But it should be harmless for something to be posted twice. I could easily delete part or all of my post, but Shane had fallen into the original misunderstanding. Here:


    In last nights comment he also answers to a question many of us have had, when he says IH "paid the invoices" for at least some of the energy provided by the 1MW plant. IH shows one of those invoices in their exhibit, but nothing to show they ever actually paid. According to Rossi, they did pay, so now we supposedly know.

    So Shane misread what Rossi had written, that's all. It was not about the JMP "invoices." It was about the ERV invoices, quite clearly.


    Then here comes:


    [Dewey Weaver had written:]


    Properly informed of the risks? Why would they invest, if properly informed?


    As I wrote, they know more -- much more -- than you do. You are still thinking about "devices" and "inventors" and Rossi. Your mind is locked in a loop, where you are repeating your Favorite Topic over and over, and it's one that will bring you no joy or peace.


    Quote

    C'mon Dewey. How hard is it to demand a proper and conclusive test performed by a reputable testing lab or agency before investing $50 million?!


    Test of what?


    There are two totally distinct issues: Rossi and CMNS. Rossi never allowed independent testing, you know that, I know that, and only a few on Planet Rossi think that Lugano etc. was independent. However, Woodford did not invest in Rossi technology. It invested in IH Holdings International, Ltd, which owns Industrial heat, which owns IPH International B.V, which owns the Rossi License for half the planet, apparently carrying it at a book value of $460,000. Basically, that is less than 1% of the Woodford investment, and it is a hedge against the possibility of a Wabbit. So, again, test of what? IH is in the business of supporting research and possible commercial development of LENR. They are explicitly in the research stage, so what they are spending is being entirely expensed (other than a few items, such as that License at $460,000 or so.) These are losses, on the books, and are passed on to the investors, if I'm correct, where they are excellent tax write-offs. One does not make fortunes with tax write-offs, in general. However, if one is interested in socially valuable investment, it can help. It has a possibility, however small, of reaping enormous profits. Probably not from Rossi technology!


    So what about CMNS as a whole? Waste of money? Let's say that big money, long-term investment, is betting in the other direction from you, "Mary."


    But wait, isn't "cold fusion" bogus, shown to be that long ago? No. That's where it's necessary to do some serious research. What actually happened 27 years ago, and in the months and years following? I was aware then of the findings of Pons and Fleischmann. I thought it was interesting, but I also knew that it was a long shot. So instead of buying futures in palladium, I bought palladium itself, in a Credit Suisse metal account. Possibly a good thing, but ... had I held on to this for a few years, I might have made a lot of money, because palladium prices eventually went through the roof. But I didn't hold it, because I thought, with nearly everyone else not following it very closely, that it was a mistake. It was not until early 2009 that I noticed a strange thing on Wikipedia, an administrator acting to suppress the availability of reliably sourced information. I confronted that, purely as a Wikipedian, supporting policy. I was actually confirmed by the Arbitration Committee, but then that administrator and his friends circled the wagons. Long story short, Wikipedia is corrupt, when one looks underneath the covers. Far more corrupt than I had dreamed.


    So, anyway, for the Wikipedia article, before they banned me, I bought all the major books. "Believer" books? Well, not really, though I did buy Storms -- the most expensive book I bought -- and Mizuno. I bought Huizenga and Taubes -- great books, actually, through Huizenga is kind of a broken record, but also Simon ("Undead science") and Hoffman ("Dialogue"), the former being a sociological study and the latter a carefully skeptical analysis, sponsored by EPRI and the American Nuclear Society -- leading to a conclusion that the matter was unclear, not that it was bogus. And I read papers, many, many papers.


    From a normal scientific point of view, the preponderance of the evidence is clear: there is a real effect, and as I described in my paper in Current Science last year, it is, very likely, converting deuterium to helium, atg a ratio with high theoretical significance. However, this is a known characteristic: the effect apparently depends on very difficult-to-control material conditions, nobody has developed reliable ways to generate it, though there are groups claiming a substantial percentage of cells that are active.


    As it happens, the same thinking that went into my paper was already out there, and the Texas Tech project was begun, and funded by a major philanthropist.


    "Mary," you appear to have an idea that "mainstream science" rejects LENR. In fact, mainstream science doesn't really exist, there is no Journal of Mainstream Opinion. At this point, if we were to survey, say, physicists, we would probably come up with a substantial majority who are negative. But that is not how science and the funding of science work. Rather, people who are actually experienced with relevant research review it, and panels are formed to consider controversies. The DoE reviewed cold fusion or LENR twice. What happened? The common story is that it was rejected, and that Wikipedia faction acted to keep details of the 2004 study out of the article. What they wanted to show was only the executive summary, which said that conclusions were much the same as in 1989. And, of course, the article makes it clear that cold fusion was roundly rejected in 1989.


    Was it? What actually happened? Both reviews did come up with the same recommendation: more research. In 1989 that was more or less forced by the threatened resignation of the Nobelist co-chair, but in 2004, it was actually unanimous. Half the reviewers in 2004 considered the evidence for anomalous heat to be convincing.


    And that review was shallow and hurried and not skillfully managed, and even with all that, it was *almost* a winner for LENR. This was a rejection cascade, not actual science. Anyone who actually studies the field carefully has been coming up with this. There is a real effect, though very difficult to control. It is possible that there will never be commercial applications.


    But, then again, it is possible that, with sufficient investment in basic research, the conditions will come to be understood and controlling them will become possible. And if cold fusion can be made practical, the value could be a trillion dollars a year. So ... what would smart money do? This is not short-term, get-rich-quick investment.


    Woodford and Industrial Heat, I am quite sure, have peeked in the same corners I have. They are thoroughly aware of the scams and mistakes that have infested the field. They know much more about Rossi's history than, say, Steve Krivit -- or Mats Lewan, for that matter. And certainly a lot more than you, "Mary." The principals at Industrial Heat, and a few friends, apparently put in up to $20 million. For Darden and Vaughn, the bulk of that investment was their own money or possibly "close money." Woodford put in public money, though from a "patient" trust. What does Woodford get for that?


    They booked a seat in the front row. It's called getting in on the ground floor. If there is a commercial development, they are likely to know about it first, and knowledge is power. Meanwhile, even if they lose money, science will advance, and scientific papers are starting to appear that disclose Industrial Heat as supporting the research.


    What I proposed, the confirmation of heat/helium with increased precision, is happening, fully funded. I had thought I was going to have to run around to drum up support. No, while my chatting up heat/helium may have had an effect, it happened without my budging from my apartment, that funding showed up at the end of 2014 (shortly before my paper was published). With a dream team set up to do the work. I could not have asked for better.


    And Industrial Heat didn't have to spend a penny for that, but they will gain the benefits, as will all in the field. (I don't know if they had any influence over that charitable donation, it's not impossible. What I do know is that Industrial Heat is not running as if LENR is a jungle, dog-eat-dog, and that is part of how they have gained, and will, I predict, keep the trust of the scientific community.


    Meanwhile, "Mary," how's it working for you? Does it make you happy to see so many stupid people who don't seem to think like you, who seem to be perfectly happy "losing" millions of dollars?


    Quote

    Or before IH's $10M for that matter. Look where this negligence and incompetence has taken IH. You don't think Jones Day, one of the most expensive legal firms in existence, is doing IH's extensive and voluminous legal work (probably into thousands of billable hours) pro bono do you?

    I don't know. Maybe. More likely not. The workman is worthy of his meat. Rossi may end up paying those legal bills, he probably still has some of the $10 million left. As to the License, IH may end up keeping it, or not, and that is a complex decision that may depend on negotiations with Rossi. They may decide to go for the money back, it would be reasonable, but not the only way to proceed. I don't know that it matters all that much to them. Now that Rossi sued them, they had to defend themselves, so they are doing exactly that.


    If I were an inventor, and I was considering an offer from Industrial Heat, I might look at how they treated Rossi. What would I think?

  • Abd I've upvoted two of your recent posts that contain excellent not obvious points but are very and unnecessarily long. I'm good at skipping, as are many here, but obviously not all from the number of people who don't like the length!


    MY wrote:

    Properly informed of the risks? Why would they invest without appropriate testing, if properly informed? C'mon Dewey. How hard is it to demand a proper and conclusive test performed by a reputable testing lab or agency before investing $50 million?! Or before IH's $10M for that matter. You really think it made sense to do a one year test?


    I usually find your points here cogent, though I don't always share your views. Here you are being careless of details which Abd and others have reiterated.


    IH might invest in Rossi because even though they are well aware that he is flakey and has never conducted a decent test:
    (1) He could still have something, given his historic work with LENR types.
    (2) If he does not have anything his bluff needs to be called to allow money to go to genuine LENR people
    (3) Rossi would clearly not allow a decent test and continue his successful PR campaign if not made to ante up.
    (4) (Not sure about this) The Lugano test might have convinced people, if they did not catch the bad technical error in it. I don't think IH realised this till quite a long time after the test, although they would realise in general terms that there was bad methodology the specific results would then still seem difficult to explain unless Rossi had something.

  • now let us compare to this humanized business.
    Someone bring you a car. The car looks broken, the salesman looks less honest than Richard Nixxon himself. You even suspect there is no engine at all, but you are not absolutely sure.
    You are a professional used car salesman, good garage mechanic, and you do that kind of trade every day.
    If the car is just very used, just selling the engine as parts is worth 10-100$ benefit after repair... maybe even 1000$...


    do you agree to pay 1.05 cent upfront, then 8.9 cent total to own the car, with promise of 1$ license if you can sell parts .


    now you have seen that the engine is just painted wood, do you pay 8.9 cent?

  • Abd I've upvoted two of your recent posts that contain excellent not obvious points but are very and unnecessarily long. I'm good at skipping, as are many here, but obviously not all from the number of people who don't like the length!

    Thanks. Your view is a common and often popular one. However, there is a lost performative in "unnecessarily." It neglects process and purpose. Few know my purpose, so assume some different purpose, typically polemic, and brevity is the soul of wit, and necessary for polemic, designed to mass-convince. My purpose in writing is something else. I am not, mostly, writing for everyone. When I do, my writing is quite different (and generally effective, I've found). It also takes me probably an order of magnitude more work.


    I will not go into my purposes here, because it would start out as long, but were I paid, as one example, I would write polemic. Isn't that obvious? Who would pay someone to dilute the "message" by what is easily seen as digression?


    So, when I write, I tend to write freely. And then, if needed, to boil it down. That takes a lot of time. I already spend a lot of time researching and writing. So is it "necessary" to boil it down?


    And then there is something that I have long noticed. There are many who don't like my writing, or don't like some of it. Too often, when I do take the time to boil it down, they like it less, not more. If reading what I write were a joy for them, they would not be offended by the length, and if they couldn't read it all at once, they would come back to it -- or let it go. As well, we are not obligated to read what is of no interest. We may, if we like, "block" any member, so what is displayed to us from posts is minimized. However, there is something darker going on. Those who complain about length -- other than friends who are just trying to help, by encouraging me to be briefer -- are actually attempting to exclude the point of view. That got very, very obvious on Wikipedia.


    If a moderator believes that he or she must read everything, this is a problem. There is a simple solution, if the moderator were to ask. Quora, which removed community administration to substitute staff administration, uses it. The only problem on Quora is that staff is obviously overworked and makes knee-jerk decisions and some of the best writers have gone on strike because of the mistakes they make -- and they almost never apologize. Quora has no problem with length, though. One may only write one Answer to a Question, and then the Answers are ordered by a Secret Algorithm, and the secrecy then creates suspicions. The basic idea is quite good, though. It creates structured answer sets. Only the first words of an Answer are immediately displayed, unless one has loaded the specific Answer URL. They then have other problems from the scale, Quora is huge.


    So on Quora I often get upvotes and thanks that are explicit: "thanks for being so thorough." People who think it's too long usually do nothing, though they may downvote. Downvotes are not displayed on Quora. They want to encourage writers, not discourage them, so only upvotes are displayed, and downvotes are used for display priority. As well, it appears that the identity (i.e., "reputation") of the voter matters....


    Lenr-forum structure intrinsically creates sprawling discussions, not organized content. Which is worse, a long post -- that one can quickly skip, and it takes one click to block a member -- or pages of sound-bite comments with no enduring value? However, the latter can be a kind of social glue, the value is immediate and personal. And then here comes this "outsider" who drops a tome in the middle! On the topic! And who is developing "social glue" with a possibly different readership? Of course it's disliked!