I don’t care about facts, who’s right?

I’ve been writing on-line since the 1980s, on the W.E.L.L., where I was a moderator. I was excited about the possibilities of computer conferencing, where a complete record existed (normally) of the entire conversation. I had extensive group discussion experience and had noticed that people would argue about what happened previously, who had said what, and what it meant. So, here, it would be possible to resolve disputes based on fact. Or would it? Continue reading “I don’t care about facts, who’s right?”

Blizzard of blogviation

Discussion on lenr-forum about the new filings shows a phenomenon often encountered: an obvious argument is brought up, and someone says that this was considered and rejected long ago. But there is no actual reference, and the fora do not actually have a decision-making mechanism, usually, so this is just an opinion. I have seen it happen that a view was advanced and essentially crushed by many responses, but what I saw today was not like that. Rather, people had mostly quite talking about it, until a new occasion arose. This is coming from the newer, grittier version of the old IH Exhibit 5, Peter Gluck’s favorite punching bag, but it is now actual data, apparently, from the … ta daaaa!!! Penon Report! “Final,” it says. Continue reading “Blizzard of blogviation”

Blatant trolling continues to be allowed on lenr-forum

A couple of days ago I noticed a post from Zeus46, the second one below from a search of his Contributions since January 18. To be clear, this is all posts by Zeus46 from that period. These are not cherry-picked from a larger set. Conclusion (substantiated below): Lenr-forum moderation is tolerating trolling from some, including a moderator, and not from others. Here, the last six contributions of Zeus46 were trolling.  Continue reading “Blatant trolling continues to be allowed on lenr-forum”

Zeus46 trolling

This is a study of a lenr-forum post by Zeus46. Zeus46 is quite likely the user who has commented here as Zeus45. Both of them sometimes make useful comments. Both also show possible troll behavior. Zeus46 is the user who asked me a question on lenr-forum, which I answered straightforwardly in context (as other users noted), and for which answer I was first banned.

(Asking a straightforward question which has a clear answer that can be seen as uncivil is a classic trolling technique. I have seen master writers with high experience sucked into answering. In a sane community, with sane administration, it would not be a problem, but … communities do not always have sane administration. This happens on Quora.com.)

He continued to troll, me and others, with no clear response from lenr-forum moderation. I previously looked at this behavior on Trolling on lenr-forum.

Summary: Zeus46 is Zeus45 here, and most of his commentary is trolling, often through presenting a fact that has an obvious and very misleading interpretation. Sometimes the “fact” is blatantly false, and he would reasonably know it. Trolls, however, are not necessarily reasonable. Continue reading “Zeus46 trolling”

Patent nonsense

A discussion on lenr-forum struck me. The issues raised have been raised many times, and addressed, but they keep coming back.

It’s about claims that IH has made contradictory statements about whether or not they have confirmed excess heat with Rossi devices, and about the patent they filed, why did they file a patent if the technology was useless?

Perhaps this is worth a close examination. Continue reading “Patent nonsense”

SNAFU, LENR Forum “Improved”

So I looked at LENR Forum today and the look of the site had drastically changed. It looks much better.

The home page: http://lenr-forum.com. There is still the 403 error for a referred link from CFC, apparently this domain has been added to the .htaccess file to prohibit incoming links. So no change there. (Originally, I warned users about this, so they would not be puzzled seeing it, but then found that I could set my site, by default, to open a new tab and not allow a referer field in the request, so lenr-forum no longer gets information about access to that forum from this domain. It was basically a dumb move to attempt to suppress external commentary.

And, of course, that I tell them that a dumb move is a dumb move, they are “furious.” So they make more dumb moves. That’s how life works.

However, function has changed, and a change in function almost always takes a toll on users. Where did the Unread Posts option go? (It’s now a menu item.)

[Update, evening of the 16th: LF now apparently forwards the old links properly, so barty fixed what is described below. Still the 403 error though.]

However, something far more serious changed. All incoming links I have checked so far, to specific posts, created before today, are broken. Here, created last night to a post by Peter Gluck:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/4745-Rossi-vs-Darden-developments-Part-2/?postID=45875#post45875

This link does not return the post, it is translated by LF to:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/?postID=45875#post45875

The post now has the direct link:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=45875#post45875

All incoming links to lenr-forum, generated before today, are now broken. Links from Google? Broken. It will take a little while for Google to recover.

… This is almost certainly barty who did this. Barty did something with his own registration:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/user/1-barty/

One of the original LF administrators just registered, Jan 16th 2017?

From this profile page, Recent Activity is blank. His Likes show, though. His posts can be found in other ways. (Admin tricks have been used to hide other member activities, this is not the first time I have seen it.)

Checking out the user name 1-barty (which is the actual name for barty), on the Internet Archive, I confirm that this was his user name as of December, 21, 2015. The last site update is January 18, 2016. The site has apparently been set to not be archived. (robots.txt?) Sites do this to hide something, it is not the default.

He may be able to fix the links thing with a redirect, I’m not sure. Making changes to a site with a vast content would properly be done with great care. Experienced administrators would let the community know what is happening, such a shift would be planned and reviewed.

The only time I saw LF admin consult the community, they got a lot of comment, which they then ignored without comment.

Someone should tell barty that “court” is not “curt.”

One improvement I see. Looking at my profile there, I see a little lock symbol. That shows that my account is locked out. I can see one other locked user.

Attempting to log in to my locked account, to see if function has changed, I used the Facebook log-in option. It’s broken, Facebook won’t allow the referral. I try the regular log-in. Doesn’t work, password doesn’t match, it tells me. So I used the forgotten password option. It tells me a message is sent. No message shows up.

Not logged in, I cannot see the messages that were sent to me with the ban. I’m surprised that the Facebook login doesn’t work. What was happening before the site changes is that the log-in would be accepted, then all pages on LF displayed an error message, i.e,. the site could not be used, and logout was not allowed, so I had to kill cookies, etc, to log out.

This is all unskillful administration, and it has been highly resistant to suggestions. Indeed, no reason has been given for my ban, other than perhaps being annoying. and suggesting improved moderation procedures. Users who were blatantly racist, disruptive, and users who consistently post utter nonsense, laden with contempt, are not banned, now that I can tell. Goes to show.

In the words of the immortal Emily Litella:

Gilda, we miss you.

 

 

Kablooey!

For those who don’t know colloquial English, definition of kablooey.

For those who need it spelled out:

Yesterday’s filings:

Mediation reached an impasse. There has been some misunderstanding. Attendance at this mediation conference was obligatory. Coming to an agreement was not obligatory, and the mediator will not criticize the parties, generally, if they showed up and appeared to be participating in good faith, which could still be quite stubborn.

IH filed a motion to extend certain deadlines, adding 60 days to the dates set by the Judge in D.E. 23.  These remain before the trial date set in that Order, but the latest deadline is only two days before the “calendar call” on June 20, 2016. See below for more implications.

With the motion for extension, IH attached copies of emails involving Rossi, Bass, and J.M. Products. Summary:

Britt Wilson, 2012

Continue reading “Kablooey!”

Just when we thought it couldn’t get more ludicrous

It did. Yesterday, IH revealed a Rossi objection to a Discovery Request where Rossi objected to a request for communication records:

REQUEST NO. 4: All Communications between You and Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjorn Hartman, Bo Hoistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegner and/or Hanno Essen.

It included this:

ANSWER:  … It is clear from this request that Defendants seek only to harass and intimidate Plaintiffs through this request as Defendants know that some, or all, of the above individuals participate in the nomination process for the Nobel Prize and their involvement in this matter could jeopardize any consideration Plaintiffs may be receiving for such nomination.

Never mind that none of those people are members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which votes on the Nobel Prizes, nor that the disclosure of correspondence with them would have any effect on Rossi’s potential, never mind that Rossi is an engineer, not a scientist, and didn’t discover anything as to basic science (NiH reactions were suspected or shown before his claims), and never mind that Rossi has not shared his discoveries with the world as yet, and if he does, and if they are real, it would completely wipe out whatever oppobrium might settle on him from disclosure, and never mind that if he wanted to avoid this, filing the lawsuit would be, ah, counterproductive. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. One might think.

But today he topped himself. Continue reading “Just when we thought it couldn’t get more ludicrous”

The New Fizzle

Facts are facts, or why Darden et.al will lose the ECAT Case

This is a post, last updated in August, 2016, on thenewfire.wordpress.com, a site apparently owned by Rends, a lenr-forum.com moderator. I never saw any abusive moderator actions by him on lenr-forum, but when Alan Smith claimed to have the support of Staff, in his deletion actions and perhaps for his later ban, he could be part of that.

The blog is full of misinterpretation and conspiracy theory. The tagline is “Supporter of the LENR Revolution”, but, in fact, this is Planet Rossi, at its worst.

I received an email asking about a claim made on the blog page, so I’m looking at it in detail. Continue reading “The New Fizzle”

Is LENR real?

Yesterday, on lenr-forum.com, THHuxley wrote:

As someone who tends to be a debunker I can answer that [question about why people argue so much on lenr-forum]. Internet sites like this tend to be fan sites, where the object is admired. In this case people here would believe or hope LENR exists and come to see what new proofs and applications have been found.

I introduce here evidence for the reality of LENR. Continue reading “Is LENR real?”

Lenr-forum miscellany, with a fast and clearly-earned ban

I’ve been cleaning up the blog, creating structure, having fun, and, today, mostly, I wrote for the private CMNS list. Then I looked at lenr-forum, and saw some Stuff. This is miscellany and I don’t know yet what I’ll call this, it’s just what hit me. Continue reading “Lenr-forum miscellany, with a fast and clearly-earned ban”

Deletion of 16 posts by Alan Smith

Notes 12/25/2016:

I counted 16 posts originally, but later counted 15. It is possible for a moderator completely delete a post, which will cause subsequent posts to be renumbered, I have seen an example of this. I see that I never published this page….
12/10/2016
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax – Thursday, 12:58am
Replied to the thread Industrial Heat’s James A. Bass: President of Reactance Engineering Inc and Engineer for JM Products.

 

Deletion of 16 posts by Alan Smith

−1

I asked about deletions. Now I see them. We are not notified of these.

First of all, Alan Smith posted something here that was very much off-thread-topic. [<-link]

He later hacked up what came next in the thread. Next page, [<-link] 12 posts deleted.

and Next page, [<-link] so far, 4 posts deleted.

This is intolerable behavior for a moderator. He allows himself to talk about whatever he wants, off-topic (but relevant to the overall social context, perhaps) but deletes what others write.

There is a problem with off-topic discussion on lenr-forum, but unpredictable and arbitrary deletion by a moderator who himself offends on this is not a solution.

I believe that there are administrative options, much better, and have attempted to suggest them. Alan is obviously deaf and hostile to such.

As a writer, who often writes ad-hoc, sometimes incorporating research, etc., deletion without notice is chilling, it is not tolerable. Deletion on ecatworld still leaves the posts in the author’s contributions coverage. Deletion on WMF wikis is almost always with notice, and content is almost always recoverable on request. There is no excuse for this kind of censorship here. The lack of deletion notice now makes me realize that there might be much content being hacked up. How would we know? Is anyone watching?

Accordingly, I am now boycotting lenr-forum.com until this is addressed, and I urge others to the same, vocally, please contact me if you are doing this. All sincere participants here are welcome on coldfusioncommunity.net, and anyone who cares and who decides to contribute here can post links to CFC, as AlainCo has been doing.

The only administrator who has engaged in systematically abusive behavior, as far as anything I have seen, is Alan Smith. Alan could continue to make positive contributions here, including as a moderator, but without restraint, he’s far too dangerous. I may discuss possibilities further on coldfusioncommunity.net.

 

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax – Thursday, 12:58am
Replied to the thread Rossi blog comments.

Rigel wrote:

Abd,
I would tell you why people do not use real names, but my comment was a joke and would be off topic. I try to avoid PM for my own reason. I know you would trust and care for my info IRL. I will see if I can get the comment in the playground thread. You do good work here. I keep mentioning that driving off Thomas Clarke was the worse thing I have seen here. I will recreate the comment in the open thread if possible. It’s trivial and was joke and off topic.

Thanks. I now see what happened and from that, I’m boycotting lenr-forum.com. I will explain in another post here in a moment.

The issue is not the specific post. The issue is even treatment of contributors and respect for authors. There are ways to handle “off-topic” and they are not being used, instead a blunt instrument is being used, while allowing the moderator’s own off-topic comments. Rules for users should not be announced in threads, where the rules are themselves off-topic. This is all basic stuff.

Keieueue wrote:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

K – I met Abd at ICCF18 and ended up sitting beside him by chance on the bus ride over to tour the Mizzou research reactor. He is interesting, smart, hard-working, honest and curious. As do many others, he wants to see LENR become a useful tool for our planet in his lifetime.
While he can be wordy at times, I think that he is doing an amazing service for the community by interpreting LENR events and developments. He might have missed his calling in the legal profession as his analytical skills there, based on published court docs, are exceptional.

Since the private interests you work with control, directly or not, the bots operating here and elsewhere, I’m gonna have to ask for a much more unbiased source

It is ironic that users who steadfastly refuse to reveal their real-life identities then accuse others who are open of being “bots.” Nobody that I know of is “controlled” by “private interests” that Dewey “works with.” Dewey is an investor in Industrial Heat, which I probably did not know when I met him at ICCF-18 in 2013, but the accusation certainly comes up, over and over, ad nauseum, without evidence. For “certainly,” I first typed “cretinly.” Freudian slip.

Nobody has any obligation to provide a troll proof of anything, but it occurred to me to provide a little piece of evidence. I was very well-known on Wikipedia, being a named protagonist in two Arbitration Committee Cases (which, by the way, confirmed the position I was taking, but … Wikipedia very commonly shoots the messenger, if the messenger blows the whistle. It’s a corrupt organization, unfortunately, and an example of how such can arise in spite of major good intentions, if the structure is naive.)

This is a comment by a Wikipedia administrator who was interested enough in what I was doing to invite me to a seminar he was giving in Boston. So I went. He was much more supportive after that meeting, because he could see the present reality. Face-to-face meetings are very different than “social media” pale imitation.

My global WMF user name is Abd, and the only place where I am blocked is en.wikipedia.org. Even there, email works, it was not blocked. It’s trivial to verify my identity. I was an administrator at en.wikiversity.org for quite some time and have been very active there at times.

I have met, face-to-face, many of the major living figures in cold fusion, I attended a one-day seminar at SRI International in 2012, where I met Violante, Godes, and others. I visited Storms in Santa Fe, went to two MIT conferences organized by Mitchell Swartz — there is a photo of me at one, and there are also photos of me put up by coldfusionnow from my attendance at ICCF-18 in 2013. I also have met, in person, many other figures in the field, and have spoken on the phone with more.

Now, WTF is “Keieueue”?

Post was edited 1 time, last by “Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax” ().

JedRothwell, Malcolm Lear, DNI and one other like this.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Replied to the thread Parkhomov’s replication of the Rossi Lugano Reactor not less than 1,900 times power density of the best batteries..

Rigel wrote:

May I ask anyone here at all to address kshananans consideration that the A.P. ash results were “not salted” but could be contaminated by the testing device? We agree A.P. is an honest man, that had a battery issue. Does this happen with high temperature (e.g. IMS and one other device if I remember correctly) so I wonder with these expensive element analyzing devices, that are done by different labs. How can this happen?

This is all coming as report from one man, we must remember. Transmutation results, unless correlated with heat or some other measure of the reaction, are quite iffy. Real study takes much more than a single sample, even if that sample is then divided and sent to different labs. (I haven ‘t studied the specific transmutation report, this is general about LENR transmutation results.)

My root question is, if this (high temp contamination) is a known artifact of a testing a specific particular analysis device? But A.P. ash went to different labs that use different methods.

Every method has possible artifacts. The issue is not necessarily “contamination,” but could be fractionation, i.e,. that conditions in the cell — which are “rather unusual” — might cause isotopes to move differentially, leading, then, to samples that differ in isotopic abundance. Steps could be taken to avoid this possible problem, but it is pretty likely that they were not taken. Those precautions were not followed at Lugano, plus there was the additional issue of possible salting by Rossi. That Rossi was allowed to handle the samples was one of a list of things that the Lugano team did that demonstrated terminal cluelessness as to possible problems. I do not accuise the team of deliberate fraud, I’ve seen no sign of that. But of “undue influence,” yes. These things were not particularly subtle and some of them were immediately obvious on review. Other errors took more time to uncover.

How could multiple fundamentally disparate devices still show transmutation? I still cannot explain the latest ash. I should say, I just want to know if it’s not possible (sure anything is possible, I get that) but how probable?

That is difficult to assess. Is there a sample population to compare with? Much of the flap about Parkhomov and other similar work is that it simply is shallow, a few tests, not the array of systematic tests that would be needed to be clear about results. This is all work that can be appropriate for exploration and for “hobby science,” but that is inadequate for confirmation and depth.

This is not pro/anti ,just part of my understanding of this knowledge base. My view has been stated on Ni and Rossi. If the ash evaluating devices can be compromised, how are they? Barty has a saying “I want to believe” but I want to understand also. Me dumb, and mumbling on this point. With unknowns you question results.

This is not necessarily a compromise of “devices.” Rather, we would need to look carefully at each device, and at an array of samples, including single-variable controls. The work is much more complex than it might seem at first. A great fuss is made over single measurements or single experiments. No, no, and no. Don’t do that!

JedRothwell and Rigel like this.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Replied to the thread Rossi blog comments.

One more comment about Theranos. Gizmodo.

In an open letter to investors on Wednesday, Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes announced that the company was shuttering all of its labs and wellness centers, “impacting” around 340 employees—presumably by putting them out of work.

“We are profoundly grateful to these team members, many of whom have devoted years to Theranos and our mission, for their commitment to our company and our guests,” wrote the CEO of the beleaguered blood-testing startup.

Unfortunately for those devoted team members, federal authorities banned Holmes from operating a lab for two years this summer due to allegedly unsafe practices under her leadership. Theranos, given a choice to keep either its laboratories or its founder, evidently picked the latter.

An obvious solution to the problem is not mentioned. Theranos could have spun off a division to do the work that Holmes wants to do, the main company keeping the labs but complying with the federal ban. Or the lab business could have been spun off. It is possible that it was worthless, but a spin-off would have been cheap. Except obsessives cannot give up control. The goal is not actually the excuse and rationalization (“helping humanity”) but personal power, a very old story.

The stories of employees threatened with lawsuits is diagnostic, I’m afraid. This wasn’t about disclosure of trade secrets, this was about a cover-up for issues that, if they had been addressed, would have avoided the whole subsequent mess. Of course, by that time, Theranos may have been too committed to back up and retrench. I’m all for confidence, but not for blind attachment to stories of success.

Planet Rossi or just plain Planet Confusion?

The Rossi v. Darden developments thread on Lenr-forum.com has moved into more general discussion of the case. Randombit0, I call Zero, showed up with Planet Rossi arguments. He actually provides, as he has in the past, a hint that he is Rossi, not that it matters much. I’ll come to that.

The usual mishegas is studied and compared with case evidence and, ah, expert opinion.
Continue reading “Planet Rossi or just plain Planet Confusion?”

Ignorance is bliss

“Ignorance is bliss” is a reference to easy assumption that a site has free discussion. Even when it starts to become obvious that this is not so, it’s easy to make up excuses that allow us to think that everything is cool, moderation is a difficult job, nothing need be done, etc. All of that may be somewhat true, but it allows situations to fester and grow. After all, the community must support it, because if they didn’t….

If they didn’t, what? Why, they would just go away! Which may leave no visible sign of any problem. A site may be far less successful than possible, but who will know?

Most people, as well, will be afraid to “rock the boat.” After all, they might be next ….
Continue reading “Ignorance is bliss”

(obsolete) 403 Error accessing lenr-forum.com

LENR-forum has apparently removed the .htaccess setting that disallowed all incoming links from CFC. So, in turn, I now allow referer information to be sent. If anyone sees a 403 error from them, by following a link from here, let me know!

Previous comments and information:

I have found and have implemented a fix, which is to configure coldfusioncommunity not to send referer information. I don’t like this, because web site operators like to know where traffic is coming from, it can be very useful, and I’d think that most site owners would want this information. However, because lenr-forum is blocking access to anyone following links to them from here, in an apparent attempt to discourage analysis of site content and activity, I found it necessary to put a warning on every page with such links. I have now changed site configuration here, in two ways: links should now open in a new window or tab, which is useful when following links to a source to check content here, and no referer information is sent. So I will be removing all those notices about “403 error,” pending.

Since about December 15, see  a comment by “zeus45,” links from coldfusioncommunity.net to lenr-forum.com display a 403 error. This is only from ordinary text links from this site, clicked on by a reader. If the link is instead opened in a new tab or window, the target page displays.

To see this, look at this this Wikiversity page and follow the link to lenr-forum.com, readers should see the lenr-forum Forum home page., but follow the link here to lenr-forum.com, to the same page, and “403 Forbidden.”

The easiest fix I have found is to copy the URL from the browser address bar and past it back in and Go. It also works to open the link in an “incognito Window.”

Now, DYK that site administrators can tell when you have followed a link, naively, from a specific page? So, for example, they could ban anyone who reads a particular blog which links to lenr-forum.com. If this matters to you, you can open a link using incognito browsing, I’m using Chrome and it’s a right-click option for any link. However, I would not personally bother to do this defensively. Site admin on lenr-forum is becoming a bit draconian, but I doubt they will go that far! But, hey, if they did, we’d love to know! Share the wealth! (That is, if someone is banned without clear cause, it’s useful to know it — or even if they are banned for cause, what causes lead to bans and what causes don’t? Inquiring minds want to know.)

What is going on here?

I have received no complaints from lenr-forum administration. They have not asked me to remove any posts, they have not alleged harm to anyone from what I’m writing here. My understanding is that lenr-forum administration is divided, not in consensus, and that some administrators may be acting without the knowledge and consent of others, it is not clear. The information that I have indicates that someone is “furious” about my behavior. About what behavior, specifically, I can only speculate. “Doxxing” was mentioned, with no specifics. But I’ve received no complaints. Whatever I have done here has, to my knowledge, long been done on lenr-forum.com, much worse and routinely and without users being banned, not to mention sites effectively being blacklisted for incoming links. (Blacklisting for outgoing links is common and it’s an anti-spam measure. But incoming?)

The main thing I have done is to document what I consider abusive administration (which I define as site administration doing what the community would not approve of if it knew. Good administrators — otherwise — can be abusive.

It got bad enough, with unnecessary and arbitrary deletion of posts, that I declared I would boycott the site — since I could not trust it to at least warn me if it was going to delete something, nor provide me with a means to recover what I wrote.

 “You can’t boycott, you are banned for two days.” (With no warning or notice — apparently they leave a “conversation” which, being banned, the banned user cannot read. They have not been sending email. And then that ban, with no announcement or open discussion (and probably not even discussed among the site staff), turned into permanent. And then, when I kept on writing here, they have to do *something” or they might look like wimps, right? That is, in fact, how some males think….

But they are punishing their readers for my alleged offenses, at least a few of them who dare to read me, and readers are going to link to this site as well. For example, here is a reader link to the document hosted here that is a merge of the Rossi Answer and the IH countercomplaint, so that they can be compared, claim by claim. This is all what Dewey called “amateur.” it is an attempt to impose personal power without obtaining the consent of a community, and without respect for the individuals they are attempting to control, but to them, it is a power struggle, and they must win or else!

Because the measure taken here, using a tool that might not even be standard for the software, but with access not being given to ordinary moderators, this has to be a site administrator, probably with root access. That limits the number of possible responsible admins to the owner, David Nygren, and Barty, I’m sure Alain would not do this. This kind of abusive behavior from owners will commonly be due to a mostly-non-participatory owner, who doesn’t understand what is going on, all he knows is that his volunteers (“staff”) are unhappy. If he does not take the time to investigate — and this is common — he may just removed the squeaky wheel, thinking it’s the user, when the real cause is somewhere else.