Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

  • WW: “Mainly because his posts are incredibly boring in that he never actually makes an argument (using that term in the Logic sense), instead relying on ad hominem attacks, much like AA”


    Kev is not here to espouse positions on anything. His entire purpose is to pick fights with a rapidly-growing list of people. Once his opponents get sufficiently bored with his endless diatribes and start ignoring him, he cackles gleefully and declares victory. It is a pathetic pasttime but different strokes for different folks as they say.

    Uhh, in contrast to you who openly posted that your comments do not and cannot further science. That is what YOU wrote. Here you presume my intentions, the fallacy known as mind reading.

  • Yeah. I blocked km. His posts have no value. In replying to Dewey's insult he insulted everybody on this thread. Then 3 or 4 posts later he accused Dewey of blanket insults (something he had just done). Then his spurious and ridiculous attacks against Woodworker... His every post just exhausts me.

  • I'd be Ok with KevMo if he actually said anything that i could comment on. But he fills these hundreds of posts with stuff that is strong opinion and nothing else, and then insults anyone who counters this with facts. Weird.


    >>>>> warning ad hom coming up >>>>>>>>

    Maybe he was a bully at school?

    <<<<< end of ad hom <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

  • As soon as y'all start addressing the conditionals, I'll answer yours. You're still trying to break out of the conditional IF statement, like I predicted would happen. Doesn't it ever get tiresome to be so predictable?

    So you can demand that I say what I mean,

    But refuse to follow by example?

    exactly what I thought, you confirmed my suspicions Kevmo.

  • So you can demand that I say what I mean,

    But refuse to follow by example?


    ***I AM following by example. I answered the RossiDerangementSyndrome adherents' hypothetical, and they never answered mine. Instead they continue to jump all over me demanding that I answer the questions outside of the hypothetical. And wouldn't you know it, the ones who are the loudest about it are the ones who don't answer the hypotheticals, who whine the most, who use the most logical fallacies.


    exactly what I thought, you confirmed my suspicions Kevmo.

    ***That's because you lead by your suspicions. On the other hand, someone who goes right ahead and answers the hypothetical with the expectation that you would answer their hypothetical has started out in good faith and y'all don't reciprocate.

  • I'd be Ok with KevMo if he actually said anything that i could comment on. But he fills these hundreds of posts with stuff that is strong opinion and nothing else, and then insults anyone who counters this with facts. Weird.


    >>>>> warning ad hom coming up >>>>>>>>

    Maybe he was a bully at school?

    <<<<< end of ad hom <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Thanks for the warning. Note that since I'm interspersing my comments inside of the others, what you are perceiving as a lack of substance is actually a lack of ORIGINAL:substance from the person I'm responding to.


    Y'all seem to have trouble identifying what an insult is because your insults have been unanswered for so long that you started to think certain stuff didn't stink.

  • You’re right, of course. It’s just that kicking the beehive can be awfully tempting.

    Didn't you say you were ignoring me on some other thread? Perhaps it was right after you said that your comments are not intended to further science and couldn't further science. You have this temptation to "kick the beehive" but lack the temptation to study the science and yet, you have this bizarre opinion that the science is unreliable when there's ONLY 153 peer reviewed replications of the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.


    I see Jed has been upvoting you over here where you like to bully anyone who has anything positive to say about Rossi, but look over on that replications thread what Jed had to say to you:




    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    Aug 18th 2017

    +2

    #461


    interested observer wrote:

    I can assure you that my comments on this forum are not moving science in any direction, nor are they intended to, nor could they.




    Jed:

    Then why do you make these comments? What is the point? This is a science-oriented forum. If you comments contribute nothing to science, and if -- as you say -- you have not read the papers and you know nothing about the subject, why do you muddy the waters with ignorant, baseless assertions?




    Suppose you were to visit a forum devoted to Italian Opera. Imagine you express strong opinions about a performance of La Traviata. Following that, you say: "By the way, I have never seen this performance. Actually, I have never seen any Italian opera I don't speak a word of Italian and I have no interest in music." That would be inappropriate, wouldn't it? It would be idiotic. The people at the forum would say: "Then what are you doing here?!? Why do you have an opinion about something you know nothing about?"




    Why do you think it is okay to do that there?


    [email protected] and padam73 like this.


  • Yeah. I blocked km. His posts have no value. In replying to Dewey's insult he insulted everybody on this thread. Then 3 or 4 posts later he accused Dewey of blanket insults (something he had just done). Then his spurious and ridiculous attacks against Woodworker... His every post just exhausts me.

    Y'all just simply got used to issuing insults without someone responding in kind.

  • As a public service to those no longer reading kevmo’s posts, you are missing out on the fact that the stuff I post here is not intended to move science along (as, for example, the way his erudite contributions do.) He shares this astonishing revelation several times a day.


    But if you aren’t getting to hear it every few hours, here it is: my posts here are not for the purpose of moving science along. They are also not aimed at curing cancer, promoting world peace, mitigating climate change, solving the Middle East problem, or analytically solving Fermat’s Last Theorem. For those hoping for any of those things, I do apologize.