Clearance Items

  • @ kevmo...

    What I said, .... man, I meant it.

    Nothing was removed by any moderator, I removed it...
    And, yes... I lost my patience with that troll, that conman, that total crackpot.
    And this is the right thread to spit it all out.


    I also told You, You should repeat reading it, until You understand it.
    Maybe You understood it, but You did not get my point.
    No nothing at all.

    HE JERKS OFF WHILE IMAGINING "ALL THE PEOPLE" GETTING TROLLED BY HIM. That's what I said.


    I never said, he is jerking of all the other people... man.... but, if You are the only one, feeling insulted by this... I can just speculate, what lies beyond that...


    ... I somehow cannot really believe, that Your one and only concern is "about the "tone" of remarks on this forum"...

    It seems more likely, that You are nothing else but a Rossi-Supporter.


    IF SO: Deal with that like a man and stop running to the moderators while crying like a p...y.


    Post edited: even by Rossi (lowered) standards, that is a bit strong. Shane

  • What you wrote:

    ...this old creature j....s of, by the amount of people, who still deliberately let themselves troll by him....And there are so many, he surely has a lot of blisters...


    What you claim you meant:

    HE JERKS OFF WHILE IMAGINING "ALL THE PEOPLE" GETTING TROLLED BY HIM.


    What you answered when I asked the Clarifier to Clarify about that:

    ZIP. Blah blah.


    What you write now:

    Some further bullshit that somehow is supposed to make people think that you're the one who didn't do nuthin' wrong. Don't start nuthin', won't BE nuthin'.

  • What I said, .... man, I meant it.

    ***Then why did you hide behind your supposedly poor english to just say "blah blah" After being asked to Clarify... when

    what you MEANT was actually commented on by the moderator as "a bit strong ". You're not a clarifier , you're an obfuscator and you should change your screen name.


    Nothing was removed by any moderator, I removed it...

    ***When the moderator was defending you, he conveniently left out the CONTEXT of the statement because when the CONTEXT is removed, your statement is relatively innocuous. Now that you actually DID clarify about the CONTEXT, the moderator says it's a bit much. And yet, even now, you say you meant it.



    And, yes... I lost my patience with that troll, that conman, that total crackpot.

    ***Understandable, to be calling Rossi all that stuff, though it's "a bit much" . When you were asked to clarify you refused, which shows that your intention was to cause trouble.



    And this is the right thread to spit it all out.

    ***Then do the spitting. When someone asks why the spit came so close to their own ear and asks if it was aimed at them, asks the Clarifier to Clarify, your response was to increase the invective. It was an Adam Henry maneuver.



    I also told You, You should repeat reading it, until You understand it.

    ***Then I am telling You, EXACTLY the same thing. Now that the moderator has identified the context as "a bit much, even for a Rossi thread", it is time to point out that You are the one who didn't understood it, the one who didn't get my point, the one who had been saying "a bit much" for this forum.



    Maybe You understood it, but You did not get my point.

    ***After reviewing your comment, your ensuing behavior, and your other responses, I understood perfectly that you were trying to cause trouble. Don't start nuthin', won't BE nuthin.



    No nothing at all.

    ***I understand plenty.


    HE JERKS OFF WHILE IMAGINING "ALL THE PEOPLE" GETTING TROLLED BY HIM. That's what I said.

    ***That is NOT what you said. It MIGHt BE what you wanted people to understand, but it was removed enough from clarity that it could easily have been misconstrued. When asked to clariy, you who call yourself the clarifier refused to clarify. That makes you a simple Adam Henry.



    I never said, he is jerking of all the other people...

    ***Your post was off kilter enough to need clarification on more than one item and you refused. Now that it IS clear what you were saying, others can see that you were simply behaving in a juvenile fashion and pushing the envelope of provocation. Look up the word "troll" at dictionary.com and you'll see that the internet term is centered around the intention to provoke. You CERTAINLY intended to provoke, so the term "troll" applies to you.


    man.... but, if You are the only one, feeling insulted by this...

    ***Looks like even the moderator said it was "a bit much". So your faux surprise can stop and you can drop the hollyweird acting.


    I can just speculate, what lies beyond that...

    ***There you go, jumping straight back into making this an insult fest. If your intention isn't crystal clear to the moderators by this point then it's only up to the lurkers.




    ... I somehow cannot really believe, that Your one and only concern is "about the "tone" of remarks on this forum"...

    ***I have plenty of other concerns. My concern about the 'tone' of remarks on this forum was because I was accused of making it worse, even when it becomes obvious that the true Adam Henry trolls operating on this forum are simply on the misanthRossist side, guys like yourself.


    It seems more likely, that You are nothing else but a Rossi-Supporter.

    ***I'm plenty else. I don't even count myself as a Rossi Supporter. If I did I'd be all over the jerks like you who constantly insult him. And what the hell would be wrong to be a Rossi supporter, anyways? It couldn't be any worse than a skeptopathic Adam Henry who introduces sexual innuendo as part of the palate of insults and then hides behind piss poor english.




    IF SO: Deal with that like a man and stop running to the moderators while crying like a p...y.

    ***What about If NOT SO? Can I key up on adam henries such as yourself? Ya wanna hide behind piss poor writing so that you can get away with throwing out a brilliant sexual innuendo towards Rossiphiles? That makes YOU the p....y.




    Post edited: even by Rossi (lowered) standards, that is a bit strong. Shane

    ***Maybe the clarifier will take that as a sign that he aint much of a clarifier.

  • When the moderator was defending you, he conveniently left out the CONTEXT of the statement because when the CONTEXT is removed, your statement is relatively innocuous.


    I did not include it because I did not know what he meant. I thought it was some foreign phrase. Now I know. Not all of us have the time, or desire to parse these things like you, especially Rossi related content.


    Alan had a good suggestion...time for both to tone it down. With so many other active, and serious topics going on, Rossi to me is becoming a distant memory anyways.

  • I did not include it because I did not know what he meant. I thought it was some foreign phrase. Now I know. Not all of us have the time, or desire to parse these things like you, especially Rossi related content.


    Alan had a good suggestion...time for both to tone it down. With so many other active, and serious topics going on, Rossi to me is becoming a distant memory anyways.

    Shane:


    It seems very obvious at this point that the original comments needed definitive clarification by the Clarifier, which I asked directly for.


    I'm sorry I included the word "because". My intention was to remove it , since I can not know your intentions (mind reading fallacy). I was just about to do so when I got sidetracked by my system hanging , and I did not get back to it.




  • Blowing up Your post by quoting all the passages, which You did not understand ? Nice try, keep on, self-awareness comes step by step.


    Look, nowhere is written, that I said, "he jerks of other people". But that is what You understood. So, my english cannot be that bad, to mix up "he jerks of" and "he jerks You off".


    And, I could also have chosen non sexual comparisons...but then You would have never replied ( I assume ).

    And this is also a weird thing. I leave it to You.


    Anyway..., I still wonder, if the "cleaniness" of this board is Your one and only concern.


    Or do You simply defend Rossi ?


    Or Do You just want to play "pro and contra" ?


    What exactly is Your point ?

  • I did not include it because I did not know what he meant. I thought it was some foreign phrase. Now I know. Not all of us have the time, or desire to parse these things like you, especially Rossi related content.


    Alan had a good suggestion...time for both to tone it down. With so many other active, and serious topics going on, Rossi to me is becoming a distant memory anyways.



    I like this one :


    Quote

    Rossi to me is becoming a distant memory anyways



    Yeah. I totally agree.

  • Rossi inspired some legitimate research with his Ecat type systems, but unfortunately some others decided to copy his lying.


    In turn, Rossi was "inspired by Pons and Fleischmann", he said (1).


    Quote

    Good liars can go a long way. Get caught in one lie, just cover with another. Never admit the contradictions that pile up. Works remarkably well. I think we LENR believers are especially susceptible. Maybe that is a good reason we welcome critics here.


    So, why do you LENR believers not admit the contradictions in the F&P paper on their 1992 boil-off experiment, which have been revealed and demonstrated (2)?


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

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

  • Because those supposed contradictions don't add up to a hill of beans. There's a difference between healthy criticism and listening to someone spew bovine fecal matter.

  • So, why do you LENR believers not admit the contradictions in the F&P paper on their 1992 boil-off experiment, which have been revealed and demonstrated (2)?

    Because these contradictions do not exist. You imagine they exist. You believe in them. But you are mistaken.


    That is what we think, anyway. You may disagree. That's okay, but you go too far when you assert we are lying about our own views. You should acknowledge that we honestly think you are wrong, and we have nothing to "admit." "Admit" is the wrong word. You should ask:


    "So, why do you LENR believers not understand the contradictions in the F&P paper . . ."


    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.


    No one here accuses you of being dishonest about your views.

  • 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.

  • 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".


    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.

  • 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

  • Ascoli65


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

  • 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."

  • 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!

  • 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/