Posts by shunya

'Tis most probably St. Anselm of Canterbury (Anselm of Aosta).

This might be useful. http://www.cobasys.com/pdf/tutorial/inside_nimh_battery_technology.pdf

Personally, I strongly disapprove of any discussion that contains insult or violent language. Anyone can believe anything he or she wants, that is not a problem. And of course we must have skeptics in LENR-thought; but a skeptic must be an honest seeker of truth, willing to accept evidence to the contrary of his/her beliefs if the relevant evidence is produced. And exactly the same appiies to the believer: if we get irrefutable proof that LENR is bunk, we will be disappointed, but not so foolish as to say that is not the case.
But attacking people personally has no place in a discussion forum.
It's funny, but since we've had forums, this is exactly what has happened all over the place, time and again. It's almost as if every member thought that he/she had diplomatic immunity for any kind of disruptive behaviour. A member who feels justified about attacking another member most viciously would never do the same at a Faculty or Board of Directors meeting (though these too can be pretty vicious) — obviously for reasons of libel and the undersirability of getting a label of nastiness stuck to one's own person. But anonymity, immunity, and impunity go together, I fear.
You state your beliefs, reply to those who do not agree, run a discussion. But the minute things turn nasty, there must be an "early warning system" on the part of the site moderators that determines when a clause of "let's agree that you guys disagree, so STOP RIGHT NOW" must be invoked. At this point, after being cautioned, anyone insisting on arguing in a sterile, disruptive, or verbally violent way should be immediately banned. For at least six months, if not permanently.
I do not believe in too much leniency. Years back, I used to belong to a very scholarly discussion list, mostly philological in nature. At a certain point it became the target of certain individuals who had pre-cut views on a certain subject which were basically ethnoreligious in nature and not based on the scholarship the discussion list was centred on. Needless to say, they saturated the list with insult and garbage. The result? I signed off, it had become impossible to discuss anything else. The same happens all over, in many fields: bad currency drives out the good stuff. In this debate, I'm for harsh measures.

I will never cease to be amazed at the low quality of the English used for many international posts. Google Translate just isn't enough. There are translators practically all over the world that are having a hard time making ends meet, but nobody consults them. That said, much praise is due to Bob Higgins for his continuing work on Russian papers.

Personally, I find it paradoxical and sad that Arxiv, after refusing the publication of the Lugano report, has accepted a paper which is totally based on the results obtained in that report. Compliments to Arxiv for their 20/20 hindsight vision!

The article is still available on Il Fatto Quotidiano's website, here:
http://www.si24.it/2014/11/05/…-per-500-mila-euro/72671/

The Corriere della Sera archive reports it here:
http://archiviostorico.corrier…4-9095-6370fc60889d.shtml

[email protected]