Clearance Items

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Hahaha - pot, kettle, black.

    Alan,

    It is no secret that you do not care for Dewey, or at least his posts. Indeed, you follow the pattern of almost all Rossi faithful. You point out other's failings or possible misinterpetations, yet give the "master" complete free pass on his many out right, flagrant deceptions.


    Just like IHFanBoy, you will point to IH "possible" venture capitalistic wrong doing, but never utter a negative anout Rossi's, under oath, proven mutilple lies and deceit.


    "Pot, kettle, black" indeed! I believe that is what irritates me and others the most! You defend Rossi, but NEVER hold him accountable.


    Truthfully, I lost all confidence in your judgement or at least objectiveness with the Stockholm demo. While not asking for any donations, you did use them. You stated you would report what you saw. You never did because if done truthfully, it would have been damning to Rossi. So you reported in essence nothing. I am still waiting on a technical evaluation on that demo from you. Will we receive one?


    It is a scientist obligation to report the fakery as much as the poditive. Unfortunately, you have chosen your support of Rossi over objective reporting it appears.


    Most "skeptics" here do not bristle at the few who question IH, IF they hold Rossi to the same ruler. It is just that you Rossi brethern will never hold the leader accountable. For anything it seems.


    The demo was rounding success, in which it really showed Rosdi in a good light.😃

    Is this correct? Mats and IV should damn well be proud, yes or no?😞


    What do you report from a scientic perspective?


    (I too, wish you the best in research. )

    Quote from Bob

    Truthfully, I lost all confidence in your judgement or at least objectiveness with the Stockholm demo. While not asking for any donations, you did use them. You stated you would report what you saw. You never did because if done truthfully, it would have been damning to Rossi. So you reported in essence nothing. I am still waiting on a technical evaluation on that demo from you. Will we receive one?


    It is a scientist obligation to report the fakery as much as the poditive. Unfortunately, you have chosen your support of Rossi over objective reporting it appears.



    @Bob : Your are asking childish questions! Nobody can make a technical analysis just from watching. Nobody simply knows whether AR has something or not. This most likely includes AR too.


    Hate is the cheapest emotion you can live and doing it at a forum is even cheaper. Please, just wait and watch, as all other anonymous posters, that contribute anything to LENR or science.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Your problem is that you need to see indications of Rossi having the real stuff in contorted (and IMHO completely wrong) observations of IH because Rossi for sure has never given anyone an indication his stuff works.


    Nope. I do not have a problem with that. My problem is mainly to figure out the true reasons behind the obvious consensus cracking going on here on the forum. By you and many else. And the reasons behind the witch hunt (on everyone not confirming to the IH narrative - mainly Swedes) going on that Dewey et al are engaging in. Even those that are actually neutral are becoming targets lately. I get an increasing feeling that everyone not supporting the chosen narrative is now an enemy. You can put any you label you like on these observations of course, but I still believe there are rational reasons for this happening. And I believe it somehow comes down to money. And I'm talking about future money and business since I do not believe Dewey is simply an angry three year old in a sandbox like you do. I believe him to be a little bit smarter than that.

    @Tony:


    If you had been on this forum for several years and suffered tens of people with little else to say but to accuse forum members and mods of being tied to IH somehow (the connection usually being money), you might draw the following conclusions as well:

    • Someone making such insinuations doesn't really know what they're talking about.
    • Someone making such insinuations is unlikely to have anything of value to contribute to the discussion about LENR, ever.
    • Someone making such insinuations is likely to spend their time attacking the motives of other people on this forum rather than addressing issues of substance.

    I don't know who you are, and you might have been here in an earlier incarnation. Assuming that is not the case, you have not been here for several years. Instead you have a new account with no known background and are presumably unaware of the (too) numerous discussions that have been carried out on this topic in the past. We no longer have much patience for conspiracy theories of this variety. If the interest is a consuming one for you, I suggest you pursue it elsewhere on a blog (although don't expect to win goodwill doing this).


    As for people who appear to take a neutral position, they can be sent away if they use a sock puppet account, especially to evade an earlier timeout. Another situation is that someone is on a list because of a history of intentionally provocative (= trolling) behavior, they have nothing else of note to contribute, and they cross a line one last time.


    I'm sorry Eric, but I cant make any sense out of your statements here (except as some kind of vague warning). I believe people sometimes do have rational reasons for their actions. Dont you? And Dewey clearly has a financial connection with IH. Is that even controversial? THH was arguing some sort of disconnect between Dewey writings and this obvious fact, which I found non-rational unless Dewey is stupid (bulldog i believe was the word used - and they are not too smart) or something. I however do not believe this to be the case. It is also obvious there is an anti-Rossi narrative where almost any Rossi critique is allowed, indications and circumstances are called facts and evidence (this might feel rational to you, but it is hardly a universal fact - since none here posses any real facts due to lack of experience), and at the same time attacks on those defending the honor of those supporting Rossi as well as supporting him is almost always allowed and even cheered upon by the crowd. But, as you say above, merely insinuating IH (meaning of the word being open for interpretation) are not the world savers and heroes Dewey is marketing results in warnings like yours. I mean if what you want is a pure anti-Rossi forum then call it shutdownrossi or something. Simply pretending to be neutral and rational, but not following it up and deliver by actions is hypocrisy in my opinion.

    Quote from Tony

    I'm sorry Eric, but I cant make any sense out of your statements here (except as some kind of vague warning). I believe people sometimes do have rational reasons for their actions. Dont you? And Dewey clearly has a financial connection with IH. Is that even controversial? THH was arguing some sort of disconnect between Dewey writings and this obvious fact, which I found non-rational unless Dewey is stupid (bulldog i believe was the word used - and they are not too smart) or something. I however do not believe this to be the case. It is also obvious there is an anti-Rossi narrative where almost any Rossi critique is allowed, indications and circumstances are called facts and evidence (this might feel rational to you, but it is hardly a universal fact - since none here posses any real facts due to lack of experience), and at the same time attacks on those defending the honor of those supporting Rossi as well as supporting him is almost always allowed and even cheered upon by the crowd. But, as you say above, merely insinuating IH (meaning of the word being open for interpretation) are not the world savers and heroes Dewey is marketing results in warnings like yours. I mean if what you want is a pure anti-Rossi forum then call it shutdownrossi or something. Simply pretending to be neutral and rational, but not following it up and deliver by actions is hypocrisy in my opinion.


    Those who view posting on blogs as only worth doing with an ulterior motive as PR are likely to see others as the same. It is however not usually true. People with ulterior motives make bad posters.


    I don't see how you get my thinking Dewey is unconnected with IH. On the contrary, Darden is a friend of his, and he is certainly involved. I'm giving you a (definite) motive for his aggressive posts here. He is pissed off with Rossi. If you allow the possibility of IH being the good people here and everything being as it seems on the surface then Rossi is a scoundrel of the first order pretending that IH has somehow screwed him (for motives that appear totally obscure BTW). The fact that rossi continues to attract public support, and naive newcomers can be given his distorted view of history, would piss me off mightily were I Dewey. You can tell - if you are any judge of character - that Dewey is somone who considers it his duty to reply to unjust criticism with counter-attack.


    I have laid out a coherent explanation of who posts what. The Rossi-friendly explanation must skirt round a whole load of obvious inconvenient facts:

    • Why has the LENR technology - simple high-power reactors that work for months on end - been abandoned by Rossi? And by IH?
    • Why does Rossi put his time into a much less easily commercialisable tiny low-power device requiring a very large power supply!
    • What possible motive could IH have for not paying Rossi if the devices they were given worked?
    • Why did Rossi lie about the customer, the heat exchanger,...
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Those who view posting on blogs as only worth doing with an ulterior motive as PR are likely to see others as the same. It is however not usually true. People with ulterior motives make bad posters.


    I don't see how you get my thinking Dewey is unconnected with IH. On the contrary, Darden is a friend of his, and he is certainly involved. I'm giving you a (definite) motive for his aggressive posts here. He is pissed off with Rossi. If you allow the possibility of IH being the good people here and everything being as it seems on the surface then Rossi is a scoundrel of the first order pretending that IH has somehow screwed him (for motives that appear totally obscure BTW). The fact that rossi continues to attract public support, and naive newcomers can be given his distorted view of history, would piss me off mightily were I Dewey. You can tell - if you are any judge of character - that Dewey is somone who considers it his duty to reply to unjust criticism with counter-attack.


    I have laid out a coherent explanation of who posts what. The Rossi-friendly explanation must skirt round a whole load of obvious inconvenient facts:

    • Why has the LENR technology - simple high-power reactors that work for months on end - been abandoned by Rossi? And by IH?
    • Why does Rossi put his time into a much less easily commercialisable tiny low-power device requiring a very large power supply!
    • What possible motive could IH have for not paying Rossi if the devices they were given worked?
    • Why did Rossi lie about the customer, the heat exchanger,...


    I did not state that you considered Dewey unconnected from IH. I stated, as you do once again, that you view Dewey as a non-rational three year old in a sandbox, only interested in some kind of revenge on everyone (mostly swedes) that do not share his view on Rossi. I have no problem understanding him being pissed off, although that could be a result of many things, including simply being out smarted in negotiations (ie the game resulting in the settlement). I simply believe he has more motives than the sandbox one. You obviously do not. At least we know that Dewey has said he is still in the LENR business - which could be an indication on his actions here serving some business purpose. Is that far fetched you believe?


    As of your "facts" I can only say that there are any number of possible (at least not falsifiable) explanations that points in the other direction. The only thing that is absolutely sure, is that we do not have ALL the facts. Hence we look for indications.


    And BTW, in my opinion, those that state they act without (ulterior, hidden, etc) motives when confronted are those that have them the most.

    And your point is what Tony? We're committed and continue to spend time, effort and resources to move this field forward after the deep and wide Rossi setback. I'm sure that efforts by you and others to support the convicted felon / Wealthy Career Specialist to detract, distract and strike again will continue. You are a teardown artist who continues to add ZERO value to this discussion or the field.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    You are a teardown artist who continues to add ZERO value to this discussion or the field.


    That would depend on which premises used to evaluate the state of the field in my opinion. I'm pretty sure ours do not overlap completely ... and regardless of what you (and others here) say I do not believe them to be settled as "facts" or "evidence" - but more like an eagerly sold narrative. And it is basically my curiosity and the question why, that keep bringing me back.

    Quote from Tony

    I'm sorry Eric, but I cant make any sense out of your statements here (except as some kind of vague warning).


    Let me make the warning concrete: you are close to being banned, because you have a habit of attempting to make the discussion here one about forum members and their motivations, rather than addressing issues of substance that pertain to things outside of the forum. The ad hominem arguments directed at forum members have the effect of diverting discussion away from the topics outside of the scope of the forum itself, which are the ones of primary interest.


    Quote from Tony

    I believe people sometimes do have rational reasons for their actions. Dont you? And Dewey clearly has a financial connection with IH. Is that even controversial?


    Dewey's connection to IH is uncontested and uncontroversial. Presumably you thought I was suggesting otherwise? What is controversial is suggesting that other people have a connection to IH. I would not be surprised to learn that there has been a scientist or two posting infrequently who has received funding from IH. But that is benign and harmless.


    Quote from Tony

    But, as you say above, merely insinuating IH (meaning of the word being open for interpretation) are not the world savers and heroes Dewey is marketing results in warnings like yours.


    You miss the point, but I'll try to clarify it: merely insinuating IH are not world savers does not get people in trouble. At all. Even a little. Trolling gets people in trouble. Using sock puppet accounts gets people in trouble. Continually redirecting the conversation to questions about the motives of forum members (ad hom) and insinuating ties to IH where there is no clear connection get people in trouble.


    Quote from Tony

    at the same time attacks on those defending the honor of those supporting Rossi as well as supporting him is almost always allowed and even cheered upon by the crowd.


    You missed the long discussion of this question, earlier up in this same thread, but there have been different standards applied to different people here. People who might be called "persons of interest," e.g., because they were central to the Rossi v. Darden lawsuit, or because they have considerable knowledge and experience in the field to bring to bear, have been accorded a measure of latitude to do things others wouldn't get away with. We don't like the fact that they have sometimes or often misbehaved. But having them here despite such misbehavior has on balance seemed better than simply expelling them. (Our willingness to do this is continually being reviewed in specific cases.) If Rossi were here posting under his own name, he would no doubt be accorded similar latitude. Members with no obvious insider knowledge to offer or experience to bring to the discussion are not accorded such leeway. You may not like that we have chosen to do things this way.


    Quote from Tony

    I mean if what you want is a pure anti-Rossi forum then call it shutdownrossi or something. Simply pretending to be neutral and rational, but not following it up and deliver by actions is hypocrisy in my opinion.


    What I want is straightforward. I want people to focus their arguments on matters of substance and to avoid personalizing the discussion with other forum members. Anyone who is pro-Rossi who can work within those restrictions is welcome here. The suggestion of hypocrisy will do little to change how we're doing things.


    I think I've explained our expectations sufficiently at this point.

    • Official Post

    I do not think it is possible at this point to find a Rossi fan who could make his case with facts, or logic, as there are none that support Rossi being anything other than a conman.


    All they have left is hope the man is not what the facts indicate. That leaves them no other choice but to defend him with ad homs, attacking IH, and insinuations of nefarious motives.


    Can we not find someone who can at least try to present a better argument for Rossi? One based on the Rossi record, and abundance of facts? It is not easy, but do-able, as IHFB proved when he was active. It sure would elevate the quality of the debate.


    I share Eric's frustration.

    I did not state that you considered Dewey unconnected from IH. I stated, as you do once again, that you view Dewey as a non-rational three year old in a sandbox, only interested in some kind of revenge on everyone (mostly swedes) that do not share his view on Rossi. I have no problem understanding him being pissed off, although that could be a result of many things, including simply being out smarted in negotiations (ie the game resulting in the settlement). I simply believe he has more motives than the sandbox one. You obviously do not. At least we know that Dewey has said he is still in the LENR business - which could be an indication on his actions here serving some business purpose. Is that far fetched you believe?


    Is it far-fetched that posting in a fringe LENR blog ignored by the major LENR researchers serves a business model? Yes.

    Is it 3 year old behaviour to reply to insults? Possibly - but it is also something done by most humans.

    Is it irrational to believe sinister (unformulated) motives over simple clearly stated ones? Yes


    As of your "facts" I can only say that there are any number of possible (at least not falsifiable) explanations that points in the other direction. The only thing that is absolutely sure, is that we do not have ALL the facts. Hence we look for indications.


    That is a truism of life, and difficult to argue against. However when there is a simple explanation rational people prefer that over explanations so complex and illogical that they cannot be clearly stated. You can find indications for whatever conspiracy theory you like. What I've not seen you or anyone else do is explain the known facts with such a complex theory.


    I look forward to somone supporting Rossi making a decent attempt to put forward such an explanation. There are certainly enough facts around, after Doral.

    Shane,

    "...IHFB proved when he was active. It sure would elevate the quality of the debate."


    I take some level of exception to this credit being given. IHFB probably irritated me more than anyone. His "missing windows" and "scratches on the floors" and often barbs about Darden were just as desparate as the rest of the believers..... BUT he KEPT stating he was not biased, was simply looking at the facts...etc.


    That was completely disingenuous. At least most of the believers state where they stand. IHFB said one thing but only argued another. I have little respect for that.:rolleyes:

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.