Why not have a dedicated "Ahlfors" thread? I would follow it.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
What's this with deleting my post? Not that I care much, but I can't remember anything contentious about it and would like to understand why...
-
Perhaps you'd like to expand on these good reasons?
If I knew what they were, I wouldn't have to wonder about them...
-
What's this with deleting my post? Not that I care much, but I can't remember anything contentious about it and would like to understand why...
I haven't deleted anything at all. So the answer to your question is 'dunno mate'.
-
That sort of paid engagement is about influencing mass opinion
Yes, it is often used for that reason. But not solely. Or are you some kind of authority on astroturfing?
IH does care about its reputation with potential professional VC investors, and also with the LENR scientists it has funded and continues to fund. I can't see this Forum being relevant to either set of people, can you?
You are basing your conclusions on a very restrictive set of assumptions. Yes, I do happen to think that IH cares about the views of the LENR enthusiast community, some of whom include people that IH might want to do business with. And don't forget there are many people lurking in the shadows. I think you'd be surprised by who is lurking on both LENR forum and ECW. I have pegged you in the past as hopelessly naive, and I see no hope for you on the horizon.
We do the best we can to allow debate and the presentation of different viewpoints without too much censorship. Not an easy job, and you may have noticed that Mods get it in the neck whatever they do - or don't do.
I know, and I hate to kvetch. I do think that at least on this issue you could establish a formal policy. I can't see how the quality of the debate will be negatively affected by disallowing people to accuse others of being shills, etc. And once you have a policy, then guess what? When you step in to enforce the policy, you can simply tell anybody who complains that there's nothing you can do about it, it's forum policy. You are no longer playing judge and jury, only executioner. People can then direct their anger or dissatisfaction at the policy rather than the person (although now perhaps I am the one being hopelessly naive). Now you've got a situation where there is no clear rule on this, so you open yourself to accusations of bias and favoritism. Anyway, that is my last word on this topic in this thread.
But don't forget that on the right at the top of every page is an alarm button - a warning triangle with a 'bang' in it. If there is some aspect of moderation you feel the team has overlooked then that is how you (or any forum member) can tell us about it.
Good reminder.
Meanwhile I must get back to carving my 40' high white marble statue of Andrea dressed as Hercules, smashing a grid transformer with a dogbone club. Only made possible by generous donations from the Alumina Ceramic Manufacturers Federation.
ROTFLMAO
-
I know, and I hate to kvetch. I do think that at least on this issue you could establish a formal policy. I can't see how the quality of the debate will be negatively affected by disallowing people to accuse others of being shills, etc. And once you have a policy, then guess what? When you step in to enforce the policy, you can simply tell anybody who complains that there's nothing you can do about it, it's forum policy. You are no longer playing judge and jury, only executioner. People can then direct their anger or dissatisfaction at the policy rather than the person (although now perhaps I am the one being hopelessly naive). Now you've got a situation where there is no clear rule on this, so you open yourself to accusations of bias and favoritism. Anyway, that is my last word on this topic in this thread.
Here's a suggestion. You draft a policy, and I will put it to the team. No promises though.
-
Here's a suggestion. You draft a policy, and I will put it to the team. No promises though.
OK, but I fully expect you to throw some of that ACMF payola my way...
-
It would be good to link this: context and timing in these references always matters.
Yeah, it would be good. IIRC it was an e-mail sent a day or two before the APCO-drafted press release. At any rate sometime between the end of the test and the issuing of said press release. Dewey Weaver would presumably know when IH hired APCO.
-
If I knew what they were, I wouldn't have to wonder about them...
Hehehe - as some people might say.
You imply that such are likely to exist, contrary to the overt facts, e.g. that Rossi, like many others before him, is remarkably good at deceiving while maintaining loyalty of his fans. Once bitten twice shy does not apply to them - for example Mat's' detection of Rossi's blatant Hydrofusion mismeasurement of his device for them that did not in fact work. Rossi's excuse to IH that this (bringing a device to Hydrofusion that did not work and deliberately mis-measuring it as working) was part of a magnificent plan to free him from any Hydrofusion contract takes some swallowing. So the simplest explanation requires no wonder except at Rossi's own unusual PR talents.
This is no doubt of some professional interest to you, so I'm just wondering why you are wondering?
-
Yeah, it would be good. IIRC it was an e-mail sent a day or two before the APCO-drafted press release. At any rate sometime between the end of the test and the issuing of said press release. Dewey Weaver would presumably know when IH hired APCO.
Good, so that is what I'd expect. IH was in a sticky situation having backed (all the strong evidence from those Swedes, and Penon too) a guy who who is clearly unreliable and turns out to have nothing. It shows lack of scientific due diligence. They have to admit the mistake, especially because they are still looking for LENR investors.
The timing here supports our common-sense story that IH and Woodford were sniffing around LENR independently of Rossi for a while, and Rossi's eye-catching promise was possible low-hanging fruit that galvanised them both into action. That they knew Rossi was a gamble, but, hey, they were gambling anyway.
The sheer effrontery of that fake COP=9 from a contral reactor must have been a real shock, and made them realise that something that seemed easy to measure and impossible to get wrong - not like the typical LENR +10% - could in fact be spoofed.
They then have to manage the PR from having made abad decision backing Rossi. I'd view Abd's idea that they needed to do this because Rossi was distracting attention and investment from other LENR plays as an excuse, you can't rule it out, but I bet IH would never have paid $10M just to expose Rossi unless they also reckoned there was a decent chance of him having something real.
The timing does not support the alternate story of them hiring APCO to manage law suit PR. They might have done that, but the management of the legal stuff seems to be a complete and dignified (possibly legally advised) silence other than certain associates like Dewey who have a personal interest in the matter. I don't actually think Dewey's very adversarial approach here is optimal for PR, do you?
-
OK
Bye
This is a pity. Ahlfors was not spamming. Just proposing evidence that was hidden in plain sight, for others to ponder on. This has been the style of other Rossi-addicted mathematician bloggers for years. Not that I share his/her views nor do I always understand what he/she hints at. But I don't see what was reproachable. If there is a public record of Fabiani having an office space in the same dept as Roland Petterson it is an interesting find.
The job title is likely self edited thus not significant.
It is a self-ban following the warnings if I am not mistaken. If Ahlfors has the same personality as the other mathematicians we will never see him again whatever apologies are made.
-
But I don't see what was reproachable
I guess one cannot simply hijack the ongoing discussion with a stream of seemingly random non-commented images and links. There's ample space in this forum for a dedicated thread on a discussion on that style (look for example Gennadiy Tarassenko's in the Russian subforum); and it's not that Alhfors isn't capable of writing in understandable English either.
In short: non siamo mica su Cobraf.
-
I think you'd be surprised by who is lurking on both LENR forum and ECW. I have pegged you in the past as hopelessly naive, and I see no hope for you on the horizon.
I think the difference here is my possible naivety in underestimating the importance of these obscure internet forums, versus your possible grandiosity in overestimating same.
Everyone will have their own views.
-
The timing does not support the alternate story of them hiring APCO to manage law suit PR.
Why not? It is wholly compatible with that story, which is not an alternate one but simply means they used the PR company they had already maintained for ongoing PR purposes. It's not stretch by any means.
You are naive (in this instance) not for underestimating the importance of this forum but for underestimating the lengths companies will go to in order to manage their image.
-
-
Why not? It is wholly compatible with that story, which is not an alternate one but simply means they used the PR company they had already maintained for ongoing PR purposes. It's not stretch by any means.
You are naive (in this instance) not for underestimating the importance of this forum but for underestimating the lengths companies will go to in order to manage their image.
In this case I'm just being more linguistically punctilious than you. They hired (as is documented, you say, and I too vaguely remember, though we have not yet located the reference) APCO to work out how to deal with their necessary reversal from Rossi investor to knowing Rossi's stuff is obviously faked. Given Rosi's high profile and obvious flakiness it does not speak well of their then technical competence and would have needed careful image management.
I stated that they might have retained APCO for advice on how to manage the legal action - but we do not know. I think you are misinterpreting what I said here, and also making the assumption (which may well be true but is not evidenced) that they also got advice from APCO over the legal action. You then make a further much bigger assumption linking this to the unlikely idea of astroturfing on our this little cranny of the internet.
-
I seem to have missed a step somewhere along the way.
Where was the Darden control reactor with high COP story tied into the COP 9 story?
-
In short: non siamo mica su Cobraf.
Did you ever post there?
Oh, nice job in support of Bob Higgins on the NI LiAlH thread.
-
IIRC, the bookkeeper/accountant for Leonardo (or was it JMC? or both?) was Ms. or Mrs. Annesser. I assume she is related to his lawyer. I guess he has surrounded himself with some true believers. One wonders if they have good reasons for their faith in him.
Rossi's accountant is Diane Annesser, attorney John Annesser's mother. JMP's payroll (which was also directed by Rossi) was handled by Julia Annesser, John's wife.
As an aside, there was some comical quote in deposition (I think it was Johnson) where IH's lawyer, in response to some question by Annesser defending [Rossi or Johnson's] denial of knowledge about some expenses, and IH's counsel responded 'Your mother', and Annesser retorted something like "that's an interesting response".
So for Rossi's administrative and legal services, it's one-stop shopping and 'all in the family'. (Not that there is anything wrong with that).
An interesting aspect of this case, however, is that apparently a significant portion of the 11.5 million paid by IH to Rossi is going to the Annesser family for administrative and legal services.
BTW IHFB and anyone else wondering how I know this, I learned about these relationships 'the old fashioned way': I 'earned it' through internet searches.
Oh, the twists, turns, and intrigue of this saga.
