@sifferkoll
There is very little libel allowed in here - of anyone. I for one won't stand for it.
It is not sufficient simply to disagree. You must substantiate the reason for your disagreement by procuring an actual statement that I have made that is analogous to accusing someone of pedophilia.
QuoteAA: It was my impression, and probably that you called Rossi a crook or a fraud or or scammer, or things similar.
EW: I have said some strong things on a rare occasion, or implied something to that effect, but I've consciously tried to avoid that kind of language. I do not think that kind of language conduces to mutual understanding or the search for truth. I've said something to this effect several times in the past.
I agree that you are pretty careful with your own accusations. In the above quote you however admit to have accused Rossi of being a crook/scammer/fraudster. But as you also stated you indirectly take responsibility for the behavior of others on the forum and their are certain "good contributors" that seems unable to make a single post without possibly libeling accusations against Rossi. The correct analogy would to to enable / or not stopping accusations of pedophilia I guess. And defending the ones doing it.
If there's something that falls short of libel that you disagree with, you must address the factual basis of the statement.
Good. Am I understanding you correctly that I'm actually allowed to directly criticize/argue with even the "good contributors" when they make possibly libeling accusations against Rossi et al? That is a huge step forward...
Display MoreI'm saying stop making forum members the topic of discussion, and address the factual basis of what they say. Here's an example:
Someone: So and so is a fraud.
Sifferkoll: Please support this accusation with facts.
Someone: So and so lied in the depositions in the trial.
Sifferkoll: Please enumerate what you think were the lies, and we can look at each one, one by one.
Someone: I don't know for sure; I'm just repeating what I heard.
Sifferkoll: Then you should withdraw your accusation.
Are you kidding me!!! That does not sound like same set of rules applied on those making the accusations. Are you still saying that it is ok to accuse someone (third party) any way you want but that there are a special set of rules on how to argue with the accusers?
Not kidding you at all. That is literally how civilized, dispassionate discussions work. All over the world. Since the time of the Greeks.
This is an example of addressing the factual basis of things that people say, rather than making the other person the topic of discussion. This is how discussions work. If there is an accusation that is backed by facts, that accusation is within scope for discussion if a person can produce the facts. It may turn out that the accusation is insufficiently supported by what was believed to be facts. At that time it's good to let the topic drop. But the topic cannot be presumed to be out of scope until that's determined.
Ahh, this might come as a surprise to you, but I've yet to see a "dispassionate" discussion on LENR (here or elsewhere, and that is not only about me...:). And I'm not even sure such a thing exists. It might not even qualify for the term "discussion". It would be more like while(stillnotboredtodeath) {if-then-else-dowhatever;}. And further, since the discussion here are mostly about unknowns, where there are very few actual "facts", but instead mainly marketing of subjective opinions (fraud scenarios etc.) ... the person behind the opinions, incl their incentives becomes an integral part of them. Arguing anything else is ridiculous. Or maybe it is part of The Plan to nurse exactly this type of skewed environment in order to be "pedagogical", and using the DPS memes to illuminate the masses on LENR.
Siffer,
We all know that because of your Hydrofusion/Rossi connection, you have "skin in the game". Is there anything you have seen that we have not, that makes you so protective of Rossi? Something you could tell us that might make us a little more sympathetic to him? Or is it just because you met him in Stockholm that time, and found him charming?
If you know something that can help him...say it. IMO, it would certainly help Rossi more than what you are doing now.
I have said I take responsibility for my influence on this forum. I am part of a team, and we're working to make this place a reasonable one for discussion of topics related to LENR. As Alan says, he would not allow libel. There are a wide range of things that are not pleasant that fall short of libel.
That's more like it. I don't like it when in the past people have done something analogous to accusing someone of pedophilia without justification. It doesn't happen too often. If there was support for the unpleasant things that people have said, that's different. For example, there was a free-energy journalist who was arrested for pedophilia. That topic is not out of scope for discussion in all situations, because there have been concrete reasons to discuss it. Similarly, when there have been concrete reasons for raising other unpleasant possibilities, those things have not been out of scope. If there's something that falls short of libel that you disagree with, you must address the factual basis of the statement.
May I correct Eric?
He is in prison for these acts and for a long time.
Well, hopefully we'll learn more once the DPS takes place.
About the discussions, I'll allow that they're not always as dispassionate as they could or should be. You bear significant responsibility for this, of course. But so do many of us. That kind of discussion is an ideal we're striving for, but people mostly do what they want to do. Nonetheless, there have been many interesting discussions focused on facts. These discussions are far more interesting than attempting to determine people's motives, which is kind of a fruitless task.
Well. Thank you I guess. I actually only do things I'm passionate about and I believe that is important on many levels. And in my opinion there is absolutely nothing ideal about a dispassionate discussion. I guess we differ in that I'm interested in humans, and you are obviously not.
Talking about child molesters, I suppose everyone knows that Sterling Allan who formerly ran the PESN web site is in prison for a long time for admitting to that felony. It's not very relevant, just an aside for those who don't know.
Truth is always a defense against libel or slander. Rossi's convictions and time spent in prison in Italy are a matter of record, his self-serving web site notwithstanding. Whatever exoneration he got was due to technicalities and statues of limitations and other procedural issues. No reasonable person will doubt that Rossi defrauded a province into ruinous toxic waste pollution with the Petroldragon fiasco. And nobody can prove that his caper with the CERL/DOD respecting supposed high efficiency thermoelectric devices was anything other than fraud. Just read the CERL reports of what Rossi promised, presented as a fait accomplis and contrast that with what he delivered. Again, his lame explanations on his web site notwithstanding!
When you read the JONP record and then the depositions in Rossi vs IH, you can see he is a consistent liar as well. These are facts. Asserting facts isn't libel! Calling Rossi a crook and a criminal and a liar is fact. There is no parallel with libeling an innocent person as a child molester. None at all.
Siffer,
We all know that because of your Hydrofusion/Rossi connection, you have "skin in the game". Is there anything you have seen that we have not, that makes you so protective of Rossi? Something you could tell us that might make us a little more sympathetic to him? Or is it just because you met him in Stockholm that time, and found him charming?
If you know something that can help him...say it. IMO, it would certainly help Rossi more than what you are doing now.
I do not think it matters much what I write about Rossi here. I would not describe him as charming though (tons of people are more charming), but rather somewhat introvert with an extreme focus. I found the easiest way to break the ice was to talk about endurance sports, which we have in common (rather than the obvious ecat story). I'm in no doubt that he can be a fierce enemy and pain in the butt if you oppose him.
Basically I'm here though for my own enjoyment and it is fueled by the feel there being a need to balance out the huge rossi-negative sentiment here. And the need to point out the huge amount of hypocrisy involved in how some members describe their incentives (the altruistic ones you know). In reality, everyone knows that everyone here has some "skin-in-the-game" be it investments, time, career, the monthly paycheck, academic reputation, future possible taxpayer funding, national security and tech control, etc
Talking about child molesters, I suppose everyone knows that Sterling Allan who formerly ran the PESN web site is in prison for a long time for admitting to that felony. It's not very relevant, just an aside for those who don't know.
Truth is always a defense against libel or slander. Rossi's convictions and time spent in prison in Italy are a matter of record, his self-serving web site notwithstanding. Whatever exoneration he got was due to technicalities and statues of limitations and other procedural issues. No reasonable person will doubt that Rossi defrauded a province into ruinous toxic waste pollution with the Petroldragon fiasco. And nobody can prove that his caper with the CERL/DOD respecting supposed high efficiency thermoelectric devices was anything other than fraud. Just read the CERL reports of what Rossi promised, presented as a fait accomplis and contrast that with what he delivered. Again, his lame explanations on his web site notwithstanding!
When you read the JONP record and then the depositions in Rossi vs IH, you can see he is a consistent liar as well. These are facts. Asserting facts isn't libel! Calling Rossi a crook and a criminal and a liar is fact. There is no parallel with libeling an innocent person as a child molester. None at all.
Mary you are a GD hammer sometimes. I was a bit subtle at least.
Truth is always a defense against libel or slander.
It might be a defence, but it is certainly not enough. Calling someone a child molester and/or fraudster might be libel even of it turns out you are correct
QuoteAnd nobody can prove that his caper with the CERL/DOD respecting supposed high efficiency thermoelectric devices was anything other than fraud.
That is not the way it work is it Mary? It is hardly Rossis or anybodies task to prove themselves innocent of your accusations. Most legal systems are supposed to work the other way around for good reasons. You might think it's bad, then transfer to one of those countries with those systems. You'd like it.
QuoteAsserting facts isn't libel! Calling Rossi a crook and a criminal and a liar is fact. There is no parallel with libeling an innocent person as a child molester. None at all.
Not so. There is a clear parallel and you just did something equally bad with the statement above. Hiding behind your handle you might feel safe, but it doesn't matter. It is very likely that you are a much worse criminal yourself browsing through your endless flood of Rossi libel and slander. That is much closer to a fact.
I suspect that what you really want is censorship of unpleasant accusations. As I said earlier, anyone looking into LENR (and Rossi) should have all information at their disposal to draw informed conclusions. Censorship of well-founded claims would undermine that.
Focusing on humans is interesting, but in the context of a discussion it devolves into ad hominem argument when other people in the conversation become the topic of discussion. Arguments based on ad hom may please the person making them, but they distract from determination of the points that were previously being made. I find humans interesting. I find systematic diversion of discussions grounded in fact much less so. Further determination of the truth is the ultimate casualty.
Not so. I'm certainly against any type of censorship. I thought that was clear?
The only criteria I support for moderation is when the behaviour om members includes possibly criminal actions; like libel, threats etc. This is reasonable I believe. Dont you think?
Determining what is an ad hom or not is as you have so clearly proven more of a political exercise than truth seeking, and ultimately creates a downward slope. And as you probaly know politics rarely have much to do with truth so you might as well stop acting like a politician trying to nurse an ideal environment for your voters.
