Clearance Items

Quote from Zephir_AWT

1) The people like Yugo don't bring any arguments, simply they have none. The lack of replications of cold fusion isn't the evidence against LENR - only the lack of counterevidence.

2) The arguments AGAINST LENR don't belong at the forum ABOUT LENR, because they cannot contribute with anything substantial to subject of this forum.
The people who are interested about mainstream physics opinion about LENR have way better forums where to go.

1) I don't think there's a lack of replications. There's 153 peer reviewed replications pointed out in Britz's paper. MaryYugo is well versed in calorimetry but not electrochemistry and is also ready with the sneers & insults, which is why he was booted from Vortex. But he's pretty smart and does bring legitimate arguments.

2) Sure arguments against LENR belong in a forum about LENR. That's how you forward science. But the problem is the skeptopaths take it one step further. That's where it becomes unhealthy.

I would ask you the same question I asked Eric. There's a place for LENRphiles to go. Here is where LENR skeptopaths can have a home. What we need is an in-between zone where we can iron out our differences. Who would you accept as skeptical moderators of such a discussion zone? I think Jed would be pretty reasonable, even though I disagree with his assessment of Rossi for the most part. Who do you know around here that has engaged in skepticism without sneering?

Quote from Eric Walker

I think that is close to the original definition: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling (sense 2). But I don't think a lot of the skeptics/hyperskeptics are here simply to get a rile out of people. They exhibit the temperament of physicists, who argue strongly against something in order to get a sense of how solid a suggestion is.

Physicists are brilliant. But when they cross the line into skeptopathy, it is just as dangerous. For instance, when they suggested that P&F didn't mix their cells properly and P&F put dye into their cells to prove that they were mixing properly. Did the physicists relent and admit they were wrong? NO. Did they admit they were wrong when it was proven that recombination wasn't taking place? NO. I like healthy skepticism; I dislike skeptopathy.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Nope, I'm asking you to leave calmly and factually. For example the problem of Ukraine (and not just Ukraine) is the feeding of neverending frog and mice battles with Russia. All officers of the separatist forces in the east of Ukraine are members of the Russian army and they have orders to spark and feed boundary conflicts, no matter what. Without Russia interventions the Ukrainians would live in piece already. What you're doing here is the same agenda - just instead of Russian officers you're lurking & feeding here LENR trolls. I've to admit, you're doing in consequentially and in unobtrusive manner - but the more dangerous your agenda is.

You've got a big pair of balls to ask a moderator to leave his own site, I'll say that for you. When you say "For example the problem of Ukraine (and not just Ukraine) is the feeding of neverending frog and mice battles with Russia" it is basically a non sequitur.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Nope, they belong into forum about mainstream science. The specialized forums about cats aren't for cat haters or for people who are interested about parrots. You wouldn't visit forums about combat arms, if you're a convinced pacifist. This isn't matter of sectarianism, but subject specialization.

I agree. I thought this was a place for reasoned discussion of LENR but in reality it turns out to be where skeptopaths are encouraged and LENRphiles are tolerated. You wouldn't know it when you first look around. When you go to EcatWorld it's obvious they're pro-Ecat. When you go to Cold Fusion on DISQUS,

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

it should become obvious relatively quickly that it's a pro-LENR site where skepticism is encouraged but skeptopathy will be sent over to LENR-Forum.com...

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Nope, they belong into forum about mainstream science.

Please answer the question I directly asked you.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Which question did you ask me? If it's direct, then it should contain the question mark to say at least - but I found none.

Spoonfeeding requests do not become you...

I would ask you the same question I asked Eric. There's a place for LENRphiles to go. Here is where LENR skeptopaths can have a home. What we need is an in-between zone where we can iron out our differences. Who would you accept as skeptical moderators of such a discussion zone? I think Jed would be pretty reasonable, even though I disagree with his assessment of Rossi for the most part. Who do you know around here that has engaged in skepticism without sneering?

Quote from Eric Walker

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.

Quote from Eric Walker

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.

Quote from sifferkoll

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.

Quote from [email protected]

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.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

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?

Display More

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 ...

Quote from ZenoOfElea

@kevmolenr

Sifferkoll as a moderator. 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.

Display More

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.