On LENR Forum, Rigel wrote:
Mods, a humble request. Let these words stand. Let us clean up our own mess. Strong people have strong opinions. Please
This was after some extensive flame warring and mutual recriminations, of which a small part was discussed yesterday on And now for something completely different.
I must say, Abd is one of a kind. Looks like we have recursive forums. Perhaps someone should start a new one that critiques Abd’s, and so on, and so forth.
I started CFC because I needed a forum that could be structured to develop truly useful content, and this was apparently not going to happen on LF. When I saw that LF content could be — was actually — deleted arbitrarily, without notice, unapologetically, and possibly irrecoverably, I decided to stop contributing content there unless that situation was addressed. Instead of it being addressed, I was banned after I’d said I wasn’t going to contribute. This has all been covered here, if anyone is interested. It has not been discussed on LF.
Not contributing substantial content was my intention then, but I might have been able to do what I often do on E-cat world, point to content elsewhere. One-liners.
Not a problem for me. I found that writing here was far more powerful, far more effective for my purposes, and being banned on LF reduced temptation for me to spin my wheels dealing with trolls — or opinionated moderators who impose their opinions on the community.
It is fine if there are many fora, one would be too restrictive. Let a hundred flowers bloom was only a problem because the one who said it was a dictator who proceeded to cut down the blossoms as soon as they were visible. I don’t have the power to do that even if I wanted to, and I don’t want to.
It is possible that CFC could be critiqued on LF, if the moderators allow it, and it’s possible elsewhere. (Nobody has been, so far, threatened with sanctions for pointing usefully to content here. LF (probably Barty) attempted for a time to suppress refered links from here, displaying an access prohibited error, a bad idea which was easily defeated — by turning off referral! — and which was finally abandoned.) Peter Gluck links to us on his blog, often. E-Cat world has no problem with linking here.
However, we can also be critiqued here. Let a hundred flowers bloom. Here. This is not an invitation to trolling; I am committed to two principles: the first is creating useful content and structures to support cold fusion research and the second is to treat dissent fairly, with the ultimate goal being consensus. Genuine skepticism is fully welcome. Pseudoskepticism is not excluded (one man’s pseudo is another’s speedo), but will not be allowed to dominate. We will, however, guide rather than ban, wherever possible. My concepts of how to manage this and create community leadership that will survive me are far beyond what has been demonstrated fully.
If this depends only on me, it will ultimately fail.
I like Abd’s critiques, they keep us honest. Whether you agree or not, he is in depth and thoughtful. In my own opinion I am not sure why he is not accepted. He is of obviously high intelligence, why is his worldview intelligence a threat here? (I assume he did/said something and I must respect it) I just disagree and move on. We maybe we should all agree healthy discourse is healthy.
Abd is not the enemy he is just a voice sometimes with
Once we lose a voice we all lose caipche?
Great minds think alike. (Thanks, Rigel. Capiche?)
Be aware that sticking your head up, someone may shoot at it. In my training, the saying was that if nobody is shooting at you, you are not doing anything worth wasting ammunition on. The people held up to us for inspiration were Martin Luther King, Jack Kennedy, Mahatma Gandhi, Malcolm X…. and then we notice that all of them were shot.
My habit on Wikipedia was to defend those who were being abused. So the abusers came after me. One user defended me. They banned him. However, one discovers this: being banned is liberation, freedom. When I was banned from Wikipedia, I no longer had any responsibility for all the crap coming down there, and it can be awful. I also found that if I wanted to edit Wikipedia, I could still do so any time I wanted. They actually had no power, or … not the power that they imagined. They had the power to shoot themselves in the foot. It only harmed me to the extent that I was attached.
When I was banned, I no longer had any responsibility to follow due process. I don’t edit Wikipedia, but not because I couldn’t. I could, the same as I could post on LENR-Forum if I chose to do so. And the same as I can critique LENR-Forum if I choose. Or, more relevantly, Steve Krivit, who did fire a shot recently. The result: much more critique.
I’m not bulletproof, except in one way, which I won’t reveal.
I wasn’t trying to demean Abd. It was more of comment of admiration of his persistence and excruciating detailed analysis of the comments made here by me and others. I do prefer that his extensive analysis exists elsewhere besides this forum. It is just my personal preference for concise to-the-point reasoning. If somebody wants the book version, Abd is quite skilled at that.
Consider it hypertext, and it could literally be that if anyone wants to point to comments here. I will also place anchors wherever requested, so that one can link to a particular place in a post. I may be doing this more and more, creating indices.
The LENR-Forum format is not suited for the kind of writing I do. What might be noticed is that, here, I write commentary on sequences of answers, generally with some overall theme.
I’m currently the only one writing posts here, but nobody else has yet expressed interest. Posts and pages are welcome, just ask for the necessary privilege level. As well, help with maintenance is sought, and, as well, participation, ultimately, in governance, not only of this site but of my work and that of Infusion Institute, Inc.
On the other side, one person’s to-the-point concise analysis is another’s dull, repetitive, mind-fogged knee-jerk opinion. Writing something concise to clear up a serious misconception that might be expressed in a sound bite can take enormous skill, if it can be done at all. But people want to be spoon-fed. That’s okay, but it makes them dependent on the spoon-feeders.