Those who are in on the gig have every reason to be concerned.
You've been repeating that for more than a year. Do you expect to deliver before the E-Cat goes commercial ? LOL
QuoteI feel sorry for the guy
I feel sorry for you. The golden goose is long gone
Display MoreThe clearest reason I know that you're not very good at discerning people's motives is because you don't seem to have a handle on my own. You have repeatedly gone far wide of the mark, and no doubt continue to do so today. It makes it pretty clear (to me at least) that your powers of discernment leave something to be desired.
But if you understood the point I was making about ad hominem arguments, my motives, and those of anyone else on this forum, would become mostly moot. Instead they are your sole focus, as far as I can tell, grievously limiting the contribution you are able to make here and making it on balance a net negative.
I don't like the attacks against Rossi's person any more than Alain Smith does. I wish people did not attack him or use the kind of language that is often used. I have said that several times. But there is an important difference between that kind of objectionable behavior and the objectionable behavior of turning the conversation away from what a member of this forum is saying and towards their person. Such behavior distracts from whatever point was being made and brings in tangential issues that are likely not of interest. It takes effort to bring the discussion back to the original point that was at issue.
Your stalking me is super creepy and does not advance your argument in the slightest.
First, I was providing a link to you presentation on stackexchange which is kind of telling and makes a point. Hardly "stalking"
I can see why you (and some others of similar opinions) feel a "net negative". This I would say, could also translate into a "net positive" if you have other opinions to start with. But since the concept of opinion is hard for you to grasp I leave it at that.
Nice of you to dislike the attacks on Rossi et al. But since you are not doing nearly enough to curb this "objectionable behaviour" I feel I have to assist you (which is what most of my comments are about) , by telling the attackers (like Dewey's accusation of the Swedes today) that they are out of line. Maybe I use "kindergarten" language or whatever, but I like the idea of having the attackers looking in the mirror ... Because often, the answer is found right there ...
Kev, can you please adopt politer tone?
Yes.
Here is my amended remark:
Then your competence is called into question, because even junior researchers are able to upload manuscripts onto Arxiv. You're just hiding behind your usual excuses.
I also clearly noticed that you moved all my comments out of context, but of course did not move Dewey's original accusation of the Swedes... Why is that?
Bias. But the mods can't see their own bias, so you'll just have to put up with it until there's a balanced place to hold discussions, such as "Cold Fusion" on DISQUS. https://disqus.com/home/channel/coldfusion/
My experience is that I'm usually pretty spot on when it comes to evaluate other peoples motives.
My experience is that almost nobody can determine true motives, and that such an attempt is simply a logical fallacy.
@sifferkoll: you've obviously been stalking me, as evidence by your takedown blogposts, as many here will already know. This would not need to have been said had you not attempted to deflect the point.
No. You have eagerly taken on the role as the official moderator at large here. Making it your job to direct discussions in ways some of us feel are very biased. You are the guy with the power here, and you're certainly using it. And it is my absolute opinion that you are doing a miserable job by doing so. I hope I am making that very very clear both here and on my blog by using arguments and links to your comments. Calling it "stalking" is only another way to put bias in your comments. And again, when you are referring to "most people" you only have the people of the same opinion as you in mind. That's obvious.
My experience is that almost nobody can determine true motives, and that such an attempt is simply a logical fallacy.
My experience is that it is not black and white, but that there are often clues. And that it us usually a lot less complex than what people like you to think. We're basically pretty simple animals... Like if you invest a lot of time, money, ego or social status into something you will defend this investment a lot more than is rational. And that most people are a lot more afraid of the risk of loosing something than considering the probability of getting something. If breeding is involved - everything else gets the second place, Etc.
To adopt a point that you have made above — if you find my own contribution here objectionable, I can take encouragement that I'm doing something right. If you would like a forum that is run differently, I suggest you seek another out or start one yourself. This is not a place for holy warriors to do battle. It's a place for reasoned debate that does not succumb to systematic fallacies of the kind that are widely known and agreed upon. Your ongoing attempts to personalize the discussion will continually get you into difficulties.
Well. That would be an perfect example of the answer made by the ruler not wishing to discuss the rules, and who aims to keep the right to define what is the consensus of the crowd, a "reasoned debate" and what kind of exceptions from them that can be made, and by whom. Right?
But there is an important difference between that kind of objectionable behavior and the objectionable behavior of turning the conversation away from what a member of this forum is saying and towards their person. Such behavior distracts from whatever point was being made and brings in tangential issues that are likely not of interest. It takes effort to bring the discussion back to the original point that was at issue.
It is noticeable that you have a bias operating, and you key up on LENRphiles more than anti-LENR opponents. Case in point:
Zeus46
Professional
Likes Received396Posts571
It's pretty funny to be accused of insulting people above. Yes, I called you a name, but then really (a) you are one, and (b) it's barely an insult.
Compare that what's come out of your filthy mouth in the last four weeks:
maryyugo wrote: you are too lazy or too dumb... so feeble minded... an unspeakable asshole... a cowardly piece of subhuman slime... human excrement... infantile moron... individual ayhole... A worse piece of human excrement I can not imagine... a subhuman piece of crap below the level of trailer trash.
Which is truly fascinating, if only because seeing it all at once gives a great insight into your character. Freud would no doubt consider you to have been too harshly punished during your potty training, leading to an anal fixation. But then Freud was a weirdo: I reckon you just have a scat fetish?
And what's with you calling people 'subhuman' all the time, you know that word has a pretty terrible history, right?
And btw, if ad hominem is not permitted, why is it that everything is allowed when it comes to Rossi? Or the people (italians and swedes usually) supporting him? Tell me? Why the different standards?
I must agree with Siff on this point. It is open season here on Rossi--you can say pretty much anything and have it go unpunished, no matter how libelous it is, so long as it is directed squarely at Mr. Andreas Rossi.
I must agree with Siff on this point. It is open season here on Rossi--you can say pretty much anything unpunished, no matter how libelous it is, so long as it is directed squarely at Mr. Andreas Rossi.
The reason for the distinction is that you cannot even have a reasoned discussion about anything if someone persists in deflecting a conversation using ad homs, as @sifferkoll does, presumably intentionally. You can have a reasoned debate if people don't engage in attacks of forum members, even if they say unpleasant things about whoever it is that they don't like outside the forum. The unpleasant behavior doesn't reflect well on the people doing it, and it is somewhat of a distraction, but it does not entirely derail the discussion.
More to the point, 80 percent of the people here, including many who make excellent points, would be warned and eventually banned if we raised the bar that high, which is why it is not a practical option at this point, even if attacking people outside this forum is undesirable.
You should leave this forum as an moderator, Eric - I already asked you for it. Try to reconsider it again.
@[email protected] : Zeus46 is a LENR-phile, as far as I can tell. Certainly not anti-LENR, not that it matters. But I find it hard to do anything about his willfully unpleasant behavior because he nearly always has an argument.
So then maryyugo gets to keep his insult ball rolling while LENRphiles on this forum are asked to tone it down.
maryyugo wrote: you are too lazy or too dumb... so feeble minded... an unspeakable asshole... a cowardly piece of subhuman slime... human excrement... infantile moron... individual ayhole... A worse piece of human excrement I can not imagine... a subhuman piece of crap below the level of trailer trash.
The only reason why I'm posting here is the promotion of cold fusion and public awareness of it. Now this forum is flooded with LENR patoskeptics and this is your job.
