This is a judgment call. This forum's etiquette does not apply to them in the same way. The relevant part of what I suggested is emphasized here:
The forum team consults on and is concerned about keeping discussions of third parties civil. But there are few concrete rules.
Ahh, ok. Nice. So you that kind of guy. The one that badmouth behind the back but is afraid tell someone your thoughts upfront. Makes sense I guess.
@sifferkoll I think it would be smarter not always to ride personal attacks, your actual message is always obscured by this pointless guerrilla warfare and dick comparison in terms of truth and conspiracy theory.
@sifferkoll I think it would be smarter not always to ride personal attacks, your actual message is always obscured by this pointless guerrilla warfare and dick comparison in terms of truth and conspiracy theory.
Yeah right... Pleeeeease do not bother to PRETEND giving me advice ... You're only confirming my hypothesis by using statements like "dick comparison" and "conspiracy theory" in the same sentence ... Pathetic (and actually a lot worse than what you are accusing me of, what did you think... ).. Unless I was on to something important, I bet you would not spend one second to make this idiotic comment.
maybe it would be a good idea for you to shift down a notch or two?
@sifferkoll
I'm with rends on this - a cool head is required when dealing with the topic of anomalous heat.
@sifferkoll
I'm with rends on this - a cool head is required when dealing with the topic of anomalous heat.
Well, I'm not with Rends since I do not like hypocrisy and actually I do believe I made an important point in my response to Eric's "I prefer to badmouth people behind the back than telling them upfront" comment. Although I might agree I should sometimes tune down. It is more seldom the other way around 
Eric's "I prefer to badmouth people behind the back than telling them upfront" comment.
Here's what I wrote. See if you can see any important differences between what I wrote and your summary of it:
The forum team consults on and is concerned about keeping discussions of third parties civil as well.
QuoteI suggest you keep things polite and keep the innuendo and personal attacks of other forum members to a minimum.
Well, as you might recall the, comment was about the above quote. In which you very clearly states there being different rules when attacking Rossi, Penon, Fabiani, the Swedes etc. than when attacking your friends/team on the forum. I find it kind of weird that you do not realize this.
Well, as you might recall the, comment was about the above quote. In which you very clearly states there being different rules when attacking Rossi, Penon, Fabiani, the Swedes etc. than when attacking your friends/team on the forum. I find it kind of weird that you do not realize this.
Here is what I wrote:
This [drawing the line when it comes to accusations (criminal activities like fraud & scams and/or incompetence, etc) against Rossi, Penon, Fabiani, the Swedes, etc] is a judgment call. This forum's etiquette does not apply to them in the same way. ...
This is not my dictate. This describes for the most part the current practice of the LENR Forum. Your attempt to personalize it to me will obviously not succeed.
And I largely agree with the practice. For it would be impractical to ban or punish everyone who says something nasty about third parties. We would lose some of our most valued contributors. And at any rate the line is not always a clear one, for there are many shades of gray. It is mostly (although not entirely) left to forum members to police themselves with regard to what they say about others not on this forum. People should do so out of a sense of decency. But except on specific points of concern it is hard to go beyond that.
And I largely agree with the practice. For it would be impractical to ban or punish everyone who says something nasty about third parties. We would lose some of our most valued contributors.
Thanks for clarifying this. I conclude that it proves my point about your mission here.
I'd like to add though that what you call "current practice" did not apply in the same way before you entered the scene, so there is some personalization to it regardless of what you say.
You consistently get my position wrong. I have stated that it is most likely to be a dog and pony show.
Actually you have said it many times, more definitely than that. As you have also called Rossi a fraud and a con man it is quite clear what you mean.
How would you like it if someone accused you of being a pedophile? Would it be alright if they said "don't worry, I will correct it later if I'm shown to be wrong?
I doubt that you have learned anything. But I will clarify my mission here for others who may be reading your attacks for the first time: my hope is to work with the other members of the LENR Forum team to help advance the discussion of the science of LENR. That includes making a welcoming place for people whose views are that LENR is established beyond a shadow of a doubt, as well as for those whose views are that LENR is not so well established, or, in some cases, that it is pseudoscience. The hope is that they will discuss the details, point by point, in an environment that discourages distracting personalization of matters such as you like to engage in.
If I have had any effect on how this place is run, it is only because Alan was basically working on his own and had way too much to take care of, for others had other commitments, and he was overwhelmed. He and I agree entirely about the kind of tenor that we wish to establish here. It is one of dispassionate consideration of subjects and the avoidance of personalization. People who regularly seek to personalize things are considered, mostly unsentimentally, as trolls to be managed.
I suppose what you mean is that it is part of your mission to nurse an environment where it is allowed to accuse third parties of any kind of criminal activities (especially one Italian inventor) but not to criticize the persons on the forum doing it? BTW, since you obviously have the tools (and brag about it) to stop this libeling behavior; do you personally take responsibility for it?
This is the third time you've attributed an incorrect position to previous things that I've said. As in the two previous cases, I'm calling you out on it: please quote what I said that shows that I think that the demo will conclusively be a farce.
I would definitely not like it. But the analogy is no good, because I haven't done anything remotely comparable.
The analogy is not that far off, since in some legal systems punishments for fraud and pedophilia or more or less the same. Ethics is another story. But the accusations are equally bad.
As I said before, it would be hard to clamp down on infelicitous things that are said about third parties. We do it on occasion, but applying a rigid rule would give a lot of good contributors the boot. Added to this, there are may shades of gray that must be taken into account.
I take full responsibility for any influence I may have had on this forum. As does all of the LENR Forum team, of which I am one member. Again, your attempt to single me out will not succeed.
If you are not happy with how this place is run, I suggest you find another place more able to benefit from your insights and talents.
So you are actually saying that if you do not allow possibly libeling accusations against Rossi et al, you would have to boot what you consider "good contributors"... But instead of doing that you rather see me leave since I do not seem happy enough with it?
No Sifferkoll. In order for an analogy to be applicable, it has to be similar to something I have done in the past. I have done nothing even vaguely similar to accusing someone of pedophilia and saying that they must defend themselves against the accusation. If there is nothing that I have done that is similar to accusing someone of pedophilia, the analogy doesn't apply.
Well, I disagree. From a legal pov the analogy is good because it focus on the consequences for the person accused of fraud / pedophilia. They are equal enough to apply.
