Clearance Items

  • Zephir_AWT you should reexamine your goals in light of the goals of the LENR Forum team. We do not aim to promote LENR willy-nilly. We aim to further understanding of the science behind the research of LENR. That requires detachment from goals such as promotion. It requires taking a hard look at things and being as objective as possible. It requires a diversity of opinion. Thankfully we are starting to have a broad spectrum of people willing to make a reasoned and systematic argument for whatever they think to be true.


    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


    Wow Eric. That was a lot of nice words used only to ensure your current privilege to moderate at will (like an idiot politician), with obvious bias and agenda. And even worse. You are actually using the fact that the majority of the participants are using ad-hominems on Rossi as an argument not to throw them out ... How weird is that on a scale? Science by consensus ... Rule of the crowd ... Nice! You are obviously using this forum to breed pathoskepticism and one sided ad-homs, and you do not seem to understand this simple fact. Actually I was here long before you became a moderator and then it was ok, but since you started your campaign here it is degrading rapidly. And the reason is mainly you. Maybe that is according to your plan? Who knows? In any case you seem to like the moderator role and the moral conditioning involved way too much to be any good at it. You're doing a miserable job and should take the consequences and resign.


    Unwarranted ad-homs. Do it some more and you will be suspended for sure. Alan.

  • Wow Eric. That was a lot of nice words used only to ensure your current privilege to moderate at will (like an idiot politician), with obvious bias and agenda. And even worse. You are actually using the fact that the majority of the participants are using ad-hominems on Rossi as an argument not to throw them out ... How weird is that on a scale? Science by consensus ... Rule of the crowd ... Nice! You are obviously using this forum to breed pathoskepticism and one sided ad-homs, and you do not seem to understand this simple fact. Actually I was here long before you became a moderator and then it was ok, but since you started your campaign here it is degrading rapidly. And the reason is mainly you. Maybe that is according to your plan? Who knows? In any case you seem to like the moderator role and the moral conditioning involved way too much to be any good at it. You're doing a miserable job and should take the consequences and resign.

    You and zephir should join us over here where Eric has already posted that he'd like to see people go:

    https://disqus.com/home/channel/coldfusion/


    You could be a moderator if you feel so strongly about moderation.

  • You and zephir should join us over here where Eric has already posted that he'd like to see people go:

    https://disqus.com/home/channel/coldfusion/


    You could be a moderator if you feel so strongly about moderation.


    Well, I've been asked before but answered that I do not believe myself suited. I'm way to biased/controversial. I do like to argue about moral conditioning/moderation, but not to execute on it. Either everything (except criminal stuff like personal threats etc) is allowed or call it what it is - a "Rossi-attacks-allowed-everything-else-sacred-forum". Don't try to hide behind nice words implying bs objectivity when no such thing exists.

  • Sifferkoll “My experience is that I'm usually pretty spot on when it comes to evaluate other peoples motives. My track record is among the best here no doubt about it - go back and check the history.”

    sifferkoll BIG LOLS

    Why are you here?

    You slag this board off around the Internet.

    You come here with nothing to add but insults and poorly researched conspiracy theories.

    You have made specific accusations against me personally.

    I was named in your stupid conspiracy theory so I am able to judge your credibility.

    If you had done even basic research you would see that I have supported an open debate with input from all sides. You would also see what my particular motives and interests are in the Rossi/IH story.

    But in the world of the Sifferkoll conspiracy theory research is not needed.

    I normally try to see that there are two sides to a discussion and the other side have their opinion in good faith.

    But you are different. Personally I think you are toxic to rational adult debate.

    So Sifferkoll you are wrong on me, you are wrong on Rossi, what else are you wrong about?


  • Of course that is your opinion, but as you might realize by being an anonymous handle your statements could be interesting to read but mean absolutely nothing. You can not have it both ways. I could be right, I could be wrong about you. You arguing the way you do is probably to my advantage... and getting the epithet "conspiracy theory" thrown back is a pretty good indication of hitting some kind of nerve ...

  • @kevmolenr

    Sifferkoll as a moderator. :D Yes please do that. I would never dare post there but I would read it for the fun.


    This is the guy who makes threats on his blog.

    This is the guy who decides someone is an APCO shill based on his mood of the day.

    All these shills who were paid by IH, but oddly that the dispute is now over those shills all continue to post, but now they are presumably doing it for free.

    Gee could Sifferkoll have been wrong?

    All these accusation against Eric for controlling the board in a way Sifferkoll does not like.

    And yet there are a group of moderators here with differing views. If Eric was trying to control the board in a manner they had a problem with then I am sure they would let Eric know. But clearly Eric has the support of the other moderators. Oops yet another thing Sifferkoll is wrong about.


  • Everyone can see that my track record is above average. And I never once said that I was unbiased. I'm merely presenting my hypothesis (you are making the threats accusation up) and the responses I get more often than not confirms them.


    Yes IH and Rossi have settled, but for some reason Dewey is allowed (obviously being in close contact with Darden) to hang around throwing accusations left and right. I never said everyone was paid money... but I believe everyone is paying with either time or ego in some way, maybe protecting assets and social status, etc. Like everywhere... And Eric is obviously tasked (maybe only be himself) to put a bias on this board. I might fail, but I'm trying to point this out so that maybe the other moderators and managers start to realize that Eric is no longer an asset but a serious liability to the future of this board. And I know I'm not alone with this pov.

  • I know Sifferkoll wants Eric to disappear and I guess Dewey might be happy if Alan was to go away.

    While I may agree or disagree with the opinions of particular moderators I want a balanced and varied team of moderators.

    All the moderators are biased to some degree but If those moderators who have a particular view are excluded then the debate here will be the poorer.


    I also think personal attacks on moderators are part of the general trend for trolling to turn into bullying against particular individuals.

    Lets respect the moderators.

  • Don't worry. I am going nowhere (except on holiday). Across the whole forum team, Alain, barty, Rends and myself, we are fairly well balanced. A forum without dissenting voices would not be a forum, it would be a one party state. Dewey and Sifferkoll would both like something approaching that to be the case - but it's never going to happen. That would be the end of the forum and if it looked like happening again, people would find themselves losing posting priviledges.


    BTW, I would advise members to stop attacking my colleague Eric Walker. While I don't always agree with what he says, I defend his right to say it. As I defend the right of free speech in here as much as 'politesse publique' allows.

  • ZOE - Alan is spice of life around here. He has his inherit bias (as we all do) and that is his right. I'd like for the hater / troll voices to have lower volume but what the heck - its the internet and anybody that wants to project themselves can do so as long as they don't break the law (including criminal libel ahem......) or forum rules

    I think the cream will continue to rise to the top and the cons are going to get what is coming to them. (And I'm one of the lucky ones who gets paid to think)

  • Don't worry. I am going nowhere (except on holiday). Across the whole forum team, Alain, barty, Rends and myself, we are fairly well balanced. A forum without dissenting voices would not be a forum, it would be a one party state. Dewey and Sifferkoll would both like something approaching that to be the case - but it's never going to happen. That would be the end of the forum and if it looked like happening again, people would find themselves losing posting proviledges.


    BTW, I would advise members to stop attacking my colleague Eric Walker. While I don't always agree with what he says, I defend his right to say it. As I defend the right of free speech in here as much as 'politesse publique' allows.


    I actually would not like a one party state. I would prefer though if there wasn't different standards when it comes to accusations and ad-homs. Everything allowed on Rossi should be allowed on anyone else as well. Is that too much to ask?


  • I have no problem with Eric as long he is not using his powers to implement different standards of moral conditioning depending on bias. I see absolutely no reasons to respect a person doing that.

  • Sifferkoll. If you keep attacking Eric I would feel forced to do something about it. If you don't like what he says, my advice is to block him. Then what he posts won't inflame your passions so much.


    IMHO this forum would be a poorer place without some of the colour and comments you are (on a good day) capable of adding, but if you keep making personal attacks we will lose you again. -

  • Sifferkoll. If you keep attacking Eric I would feel forced to do something about it. If you don't like what he says, my advice is to block him. Then what he posts won't inflame your passions so much.


    IMHO this forum would be a poorer place without some of the colour and comments you are (on a good day) capable of adding, but if you keep making personal attacks we will lose you again. -


    I have no problem with reading Eric. As you might suspect I enjoy an argument that is a little bit heated. More fun ... The problem I have is that Eric (blocking him will not help) has banned me twice for comments that are considerably less insulting than produced by Mary, Jed, Dewey, THH etc in every other post towards Rossi. So my question is if it is the official forum policy to have double standards in this regard?

  • Sifferkoll. If you keep attacking Eric I would feel forced to do something about it. If you don't like what he says, my advice is to block him. Then what he posts won't inflame your passions so much.


    IMHO this forum would be a poorer place without some of the colour and comments you are (on a good day) capable of adding, but if you keep making personal attacks we will lose you again. -


    I have no problem with reading Eric. As you might suspect I enjoy an argument that is a little bit heated. More fun ... The problem I have is that Eric (blocking him will not help) has banned me twice for comments that are considerably less insulting than produced by Mary, Jed, Dewey, THH etc in every other post towards Rossi. So my question is if it is the official forum policy to have double standards in this regard?

  • I will respond to this, not for your benefit, sifferkoll , because I've already explained it to you, and either you simply don't like the answer or you don't have a sense of where I'm coming from, but for the benefit of others.


    This forum is a place for rational discussion of the science of LENR research and for following developments related to LENR. It is not a place for scrutinizing the motives and intentions of other forum members, for waging holy war or for complaining endlessly about moderator actions. Mary, Jed, THH, Dewey and others make many comments about the science of LENR research and about developments related to LENR. You seem intent only on scrutinizing the motives and intentions of other forum members, on waging holy war and on complaining about moderator actions. Those two times you were banned were for ignoring warnings and persisting in derailing discussions and turning them away from the matter at hand and towards the participants themselves. You have opinions about how things should be run here and about what the proper topics of discussion are. The LENR Forum team have our own, and you're a guest here. When you repeatedly disrupt discussions and attack forum members, you get yourself into trouble. Pretty simple in the end.


    Mary and Dewey have run into difficulties as well as result of their own misbehavior, making the complaint about lack of fairness somewhat contentious. There are other mods here with different takes on things who are more than able to compensate for any perceived lack of evenhandedness on my part. And they do so with my full support.

  • I will respond to this, not for your benefit, sifferkoll , because I've already explained it to you, and either you simply don't like the answer or you don't have a sense of where I'm coming from, but for the benefit of others.


    This forum is a place for rational discussion of the science of LENR research and for following developments related to LENR. It is not a place for scrutinizing the motives and intentions of others, for waging holy war or for complaining endlessly about moderator actions. Mary, Jed, THH, Dewey and others make many comments about the science of LENR research. You seem intent only on scrutinizing the motives and intentions of others, on waging holy war and on complaining about moderator actions. Those two times you were banned were for ignoring warnings and persisting in derailing discussions and turning them away from the matter at hand and towards the participants themselves. You have opinions about how things should be run here and about what the proper topics of discussion are. The LENR Forum team have our own, and you're a guest here. When you repeatedly disrupt discussions and attack forum members, you get yourself into trouble. Pretty simple in the end.


    Another busload of words, but not a clear answer. I believe also "others" would benefit if you answer the question clearly. Is it the official forum policy to have double standards when it comes insults and ad-homs? Ie. one standard regarding Rossi et al and another for everybody else?

  • We do not have a double standard on insults. We have a practical standard. If you insult and attack other forum members with ad homs and regularly fail to engage with the details of the ongoing discussion, you will find yourself in difficulties. If you insult and attack people not directly participating in the discussion, this is bad form and reflects poorly on your upbringing, and eventually it may warrant a response. But it does not systematically derail the discussion. We would prefer that all attacks on anyone whatsoever, forum member or not, go away. But given the very low place that we are starting, being a forum on the internet with open membership, the first priority is to get the discussion into a sane place by discouraging direct attacks on other forum members. It is an incremental process.


    You may not like this. You may think this is a double standard. It does not matter.

  • We do not have a double standard on insults. We have a practical standard. If you insult and attack other forum members with ad homs and regularly fail to engage with the details of the ongoing discussion, you will find yourself in difficulties. If you insult and attack people not directly participating in the discussion, this is bad form and reflects poorly on your upbringing, and eventually it may warrant a response. But it does not systematically derail the discussion. We would prefer that all attacks on anyone whatsoever, forum member or not, go away. But given the very low place that we are starting, being a forum on the internet with open membership, the first priority is to get the discussion into a sane place by discouraging direct attacks on other forum members. It is an incremental process.


    You may not like this. You may think this is a double standard. It does not matter.


    Thank you Eric! Another busload of nonsense, but I take it as a loud and clear YES on the double standard q&a?


    To summarize: You will keep allowing every possible insult and accusation regarding criminal activity etc when it comes to Rossi, the Swedes, Italians, etc but that you will not allow me making comments directly to them doing it here on the forum, because that will disrupt your order of things ... ??? ... No, I do not like it. And I believe I'm not the only one. But I hear you load and clear Eric. I do.

  • Of course there is a double standard with respect to Rossi. And there should be. For the purposes of this blog, he is a public figure and public figures are not treated as private individuals with respect to public discourse. Perhaps that doesn't seem fair, but that is the way of the world.


    Look at any other medium. One can pretty much say whatever one wants to about President Trump, the New York Yankees, Brad Pitt, and Britney Spears. They are public figures and being the recipient of a wide spectrum of commentary from the unwashed masses, much of it unkind and classless, comes with the territory. Sometimes it is well-deserved, sometimes it isn't. If you can't take the heat, get out of the frying pan.


    I am sure that if Rossi was a regular poster on this blog (assuming that he isn't already under some pseudonym), then the mods would police abuse towards him in the same way as they do towards other forum members.

  • Of course there is a double standard with respect to Rossi. And there should be. For the purposes of this blog, he is a public figure and public figures are not treated as private individuals with respect to public discourse. Perhaps that doesn't seem fair, but that is the way of the world.


    Look at any other medium. One can pretty much say whatever one wants to about President Trump, the New York Yankees, Brad Pitt, and Britney Spears. They are public figures and being the recipient of a wide spectrum of commentary from the unwashed masses, much of it unkind and classless, comes with the territory. Sometimes it is well-deserved, sometimes it isn't. If you can't take the heat, get out of the frying pan.


    I am sure that if Rossi was a regular poster on this blog (assuming that he isn't already under some pseudonym), then the mods would police abuse towards him in the same way as they do towards other forum members.



    More important though; do you also agree with Eric that forum member engaging in these Rossi/swede attacks should be left alone doing so, and that it should not be allowed to argue with them using the same type of arguments they are using against rossi? Do you agree with these double standards?

  • Thank you Eric! Another busload of nonsense, but I take it as a loud and clear YES on the double standard q&a?


    Can you clarify what was nonsense, instead of keeping things general?


    To summarize: You will keep allowing every possible insult and accusation regarding criminal activity etc when it comes to Rossi, the Swedes, Italians, etc but that you will not allow me making comments directly to them doing it here on the forum, because that will disrupt your order of things ... ??? ... No, I do not like it. And I believe I'm not the only one. But I hear you load and clear Eric. I do.


    If you systematically derail discussions by turning them away from the details being discussed towards the motives and intentions of the people here, your comments will end up in the bargain bin, for sure. As I said, this is not a double standard. This is enforcing a minimum of decorum in a rowdy forum, which you appear intent on disrupting.

  • Can you clarify what was nonsense, instead of keeping things general?



    If you systematically derail discussions by turning them away from the details being discussed towards the motives and intentions of the people here, your comments will end up in the bargain bin, for sure. As I said, this is not a double standard. This is enforcing a minimum of decorum in a rowdy forum, which you appear intent on disrupting.


    The nonsense is of course using standards that can be fitted at will, like the interpretation of "practical" etc...


    Yes, it is double standard when I'm not allowed to argue directly with the members using not even close to the same ad-hom techniques they use on Rossi and the swedes. How you can not understand this is beyond comprehension.

  • The nonsense is of course using standards that can be fitted at will, like the interpretation of "practical" etc...


    Yes, it is double standard when I'm not allowed to argue directly with the members using not even close to the same ad-hom techniques they use on Rossi and the swedes. How you can not understand this is beyond comprehension.


    Saying it's a double standard repeatedly does not make it one. But to your point, you are very much allowed to engage in addressing details raised in discussion. If someone says something about someone you like, you can and are invited to respond to what was said. Following are examples of responses that will be left alone:

    • What you said was incorrect, because Rossi claims to have been acquitted of all charges against him. Etc.
    • The Swedes are in fact independent. They had full control over the protocol of the Lugano test. Etc.

    Don't be surprised if someone responds to these statements in turn. It then falls upon you to respond politely to the details of whatever was in the reply.


    Following are responses of the kind that will be moved into the bargain bin because they serve only to derail discussion:

    • You are a bad person. You're on a mission to destroy Rossi. You are a paid shill. Etc.
    • You are anti-LENR, and you just want to allow pathoskeps to control this forum. Etc.
    • Everything you say is bullshit. Etc.

    These are two very different kinds of responses. The first are invited and welcome. The second have no place here.

  • sifferkoll wrote:

    Rossi/swede attacks should be left alone doing so, and that it should not be allowed to argue with them using the same type of arguments they are using against rossi? Do you agree with these double standards?

    Yes I do and for exactly the reason I said. Forum participants here are not public figures and therefore have the protection afforded by being members of the community. If you don't like what people have to say about Rossi, block them. Rossi's a big boy and he can take care of himself, if he isn't too busy measuring excess heat with a stethoscope.

  • As I've said before, Dewey is in the category of principals. He was mentioned in the lawsuit, and he has collaborated closely with Tom Darden. He is in the same category that Rossi would be if Rossi posted here under his own name. But even then, Dewey does not have unlimited protection against bad behavior. Alan, for example, has little patience for it.


    But in general arguments about a double-standard will get little traction here. (1) There are several mods with varying views of things who are more than capable of taking action when they deem someone to be stepping out of line, with the full support of the other mods. (2) This is our forum and we run it as we please.