Clearance Items

  • Please Eric, tell me what have I said that is out of order? maryyugohas made accusations against me. Heshe has called me names and sworn at me. I have merely defended myself.


    You wrote:


    Admins, please be advised there are people impersonating me and I am a victim of this fraud. The Real Roger Barker does not read or post on Peter's blog. I am however saddened to hear about his condition and wish him well.


    The issue, as you hopefully know, is not that you are being impersonated on Peter's blog. It is that Mary is being impersonated on Peter's blog. I have no idea whether it is you that is doing the impersonating, as Mary alleges. I would not be surprised in the slightest. Regardless, please don't waste our time with this kind of runaround.

  • You wrote:



    The issue, as you hopefully know, is not that you are being impersonated on Peter's blog. It is that Mary is being impersonated on Peter's blog. I have no idea whether it is you that is doing the impersonating, as Mary alleges. I would not be surprised in the slightest. Regardless, please don't waste our time with this kind of runaround.


    This is getting even more confusing. :-( What does someone impersonating maryyugo have anything to do with me harassing Peter? Why is this justification for being called names and being sworn at by Mary?

  • You wrote:


    have anything to do with me harassing Peter?


    You now talk about accusations of your harassing Peter when I explicitly quoted you claiming that you were being impersonated. Quoting again, you said:


    Admins, please be advised there are people impersonating me and I am a victim of this fraud


    Please point to where you were impersonated as claimed, or your account will be suspended.

  • I'm talking about maryyugo writing this "But when he harasses an extremely kind gentleman who is disabled, what would you call this individual?" I have never harassed Peter. Never.


    Mary then followed up by abusing me with nasty words and I've asked Admins why this behavior is acceptable.


    I have been impersonated a number of times on other forums e.g. ECN, though I do not believe I have been on this site. ECN, unfortunately for all of us, has been shutdown so I cannot provide evidence. However given there is history of impersonation there is reason for me to be concerned hence why I posted that.

  • Quote

    Roger Barker:
    Please don't get me wrong, I'm all for a bit of hot stuff, a bit of dirty talk ... gets me going.


    You can easily recognize Roger Barker's posts because he can not resist including in some of them a variety of bizarre sexual innuendos. If you're not looking for these, they are subtle but if you have followed his posts, especially those at ECN, they are obvious and obnoxiously inappropriate. Nobody else whose posts I have seen does that. So his impersonations are easy for the most part to recognize. He seems to be afflicted with some sort of masturbation fetish.


    Georgina, at my urging, has deleted all the offending posts and has placed Peter Gluck's blog on complete moderation.

  • Below is a typical impersonation post by Roger Barker on Peter Gluck's blog. It has since been deleted by Georgina. I can not prove beyond a doubt that it was written by the individual who uses that name but read it and judge the probability on your own. Georgina, not being a technological person, had no way to evaluate this post but she was astute enough to write me about it. After I pointed out the innuendos, she characterized it as "masked porn." I have not heard this term before but it seems to apply. Once more, I am not concerned about stuff like that appearing here (or anywhere I frequent). I do have serious concerns about someone placing on the blog of a sick individual who has to have his friends monitor his blog, a blog which I do NOT regularly read and which I NEVER post to-- probably why "Roger Barker," a coward among his other lowly attributes, chose to impersonate me there.


    Here is his post now deleted (sorry if this is a duplicate-- I think I may have already posted it but I don't recall where):


  • 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.

    On my thread trying to get to the bottom of how many replications there are for LENR, the polite and reasoned people who acknowledge that there's 153 peer reviewed replications, more than 180 labs, 14,700 instances of replication well those people are being shouted down by the folks you like to call polite and reasoned.

    Eric,

    Good grief! I was attracted to this site by its name, looking for news and technical discussions of the subject. There is very little of either.


    The so called open minded skeptics can't be bothered to read the replication papers that end reasonable doubt about the F & P effect of excess heat being real. So of course they are still undecided. Not that that stops them writing pages of factless waffle.


    Rossi is a different story. I didn't post for years as the unsupported opinions about him were uninteresting. I started posting because the endless, repetitive, libelous insults became annoying. Some you supported and I find your argument that it is OK to do this to a non member entirely wrong. It adds nothing useful to the debate for members or non members to be insulted in that way..


    Obviously nothing I write will have any effect on you but I suggest you change the name of the forum and pick up the discontinued "shutrossidown.com." That way people like me interested in the subject could avoid wasting time looking here.

    To save you setting up straw men, Rossi is an entrepreneur and doesn't publish scientific papers describing what he has done. So it won't be proven in a scientific sense until (if ever) a commercial reactor is offered for sale. From the clues he provides it should still be possible to have a sensible discussion but that does not happen here..

  • Actually moderators do not have access to members metadata as siffer suggests. Admin will sometimes inform mods (if a reasonable request is made by a mod) if a member appears to be using more than 1 log-in ID. But the data itself is not known to us.

  • Quote

    Rossi is a different story. I didn't post for years as the unsupported opinions about him were uninteresting.


    The opinions of Rossi's critics are not unsupported. In fact they are extremely well supported. Which is why you complain about repetitive posts. That problem is due to the repetitive nature of idiotic claims by and about Rossi's claims. Those require repetitive responses. Certainly, a commercial reactor on sale to anyone with the money and an appropriate civil license would prove that the ecat works. So would one properly performed experiment done by a credible entity. But gee, look at what happens when that is attempted. Not that IH was credible but Boeing or some other consulting firm they might have worked with would have been. And where did that go? Did Rossi offer his help? Did Rossi offer to provide a working reactor and the appropriate fuel if IH couldn't or wouldn't? OF COURSE NOT. How you can believe Rossi in the face of what he has done and not done over the past six years is a matter for pure wonderment. The human mind is capable of amazing, if not always very smart, thoughts.

  • Good grief! I was attracted to this site by its name, looking for news and technical discussions of the subject. There is very little of either.


    Our primary challenge during this lull in the news cycle is to keep discussions focused on substantive issues and away from dead-end topics such as the characters and motives of other forum members. Within that framework, what people talk about going on in the world outside of this forum is largely left to their discretion if it pertains to LENR in some way. We cannot make people talk about the details of specific experimental writeups, for example, even though this is definitely something we would love if they would do. For some, their concerns seem to be more basic and to get to the heart of the empirical method itself. This is also a topic that is up for discussion, and it is one that seems to be of interest to people of a more skeptical temperament at this time. That's fine by me.


    If you like this place somewhat but are put off by the contributions of certain members, you can block them. If you dislike how this place is being run altogether, you can leave and seek out another forum or start one of your own. These are options that are available to you that I hope you will consider. By contributing primarily in the form of complaints and attacks, you share significant responsibility for bringing down the level of discussion here.


    Rossi is a different story. I didn't post for years as the unsupported opinions about him were uninteresting. I started posting because the endless, repetitive, libelous insults became annoying. Some you supported


    You said sometime back that libelous comments that I, specifically, was making about Rossi is what got you going. I then asked you for examples of the libels I was making, and you did not want to go to the effort to produce them.


    With regard to who I have supported, I have done and will do my best to make this an inviting place for anyone who seems sincere on some level, who has an argument and who is polite. I will work with the other mods to protect this place from people whose behavior is uncivil, whose actions demonstrate that their purpose here is primarily to attack forum members whose opinions are in disagreement with their own and to complain about how this place is run, and who are unable or unwilling to engage arguments on their merits or to raise relevant points of their own. There are many people who fall somewhere between these two extremes.


    Obviously nothing I write will have any effect on you


    From what I gather previously plowing over this ground with you, I suspect you are correct. We need not discuss further how this place is run. You may not like our vision for LENR Forum or how we go about things, but we do.



  • Shane D.


    I am very surprised that you liked this comment. It is very common to know if someone is using an Alt to avoid a ban. I really would like a response Shane.

    You seem to me (well just like me) if someone is trying to evade the forum rules it make sense to find the and block based on IP else this place will be flooded with more BS than it currently has.


    I will say this Eric = good and poor Skif is nutz. I hate to say this directly but his shaite is over the top and he needs to consider his words.

  • Rigel,


    I was not endorsing Siffer's comments, but thanking ele for providing something I missed, as I don't make it a point to read Siffer's blog unless prompted. As to what Siffer said; he missed the mark again about Eric, and went off on another one of his conspiracy tangents. I do not know why he always does that.


    As an insider, there is so much he could contribute to the discussion if he chose to. Instead he starts fights with mods, so he will be banned yet again, and martyred on ECW.


    Siffer, you are familiar with Hydrofusion, the Swedes, and met Rossi. You stand by Rossi still...why? Say something man! It's not doing Rossi, nor LENR, a bit of good you attacking the anti-Rossi crowd. But if you have some information supporting Rossi, or his technology, you would do he and the field a world of good by speaking up.