LF: Get out of the new road

Much mishegas continued in the LENR Forum Rossi v. Darden thread, the original of which was started by me with an intention to focus content. Not only was there no cooperation from moderation there on that goal, but there was active sabotage (deliberate or clumsy). The new thread was started by Barty ostensibly to improve “clarity,” though the action, locking the thread, did not improve clarity at all. The old thread was locked after 427 comments. Moderators lock threads to suppress comment.

There are known tools for pursuing the legitimate purposes claimed. Those tools are not used. Instead, at least one moderator throws gas on the smouldering fire. There is no restraint, and because content was being deleted, because of the personal views of that moderator, I left LF. I was banned after I announced that I wasn’t going to be posting on LF unless the moderator behavior was addressed. I was banned by that moderator. ’nuff said on that, this is background, because what comes up about Peter and me in the Playground, an open thread where, normally, all kinds of outrageous speech has been allowed (which was probably a bad idea), as to something that will appear in Unread Posts (has this been fixed?), is a continuation of the same toxic atmosphere.

The Playground was started by Rends with:

Here are no rules, it is a playground build up as a reaction of the endless in circles rotating and thus pointless debates here in the forum, where in principle the only aim is to discredit the debaters through unsubstantiated personal attacks. If you what to do this, or if you like it, or need it (there are people out there you have such desires) then come over here to the playground, but do not complain.

After a rather interesting discussion on the material for the Lugano reactor, in which rb0 (continuing the work of randombit0, probably Rossi, also using a female avatar) effectively calls Dewey Weaver a liar, nothing new … but the information about alumina Dewey supplied was new … we have

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Shane – no confusion. Off-white paint. We have the brand and product number.
We also have the same batch of Durapot 810 and a leftover virgin reactor from that production run. Planet Rossi may hear more about that later.
No comment on Levi having the material sample tested and coming back with 99% alumina except….say no more say no more.

It is not controversial that Industrial Heat made the Lugano reactor. We do not know Dewey’s actual involvement, some of what he says may be hearsay, but he is very specific here. This is a bifurcation point. Dewey is giving us real information or he is lying (theoretically possible he has been lied to, but it would make no sense, improbable scenarios may be allowed to exist in the background, but sensibly not dominate conversation). Obviously, Dewey has something to say about that analysis — which must have been incorrect, given what Dewey has revealed — but holds off here.

Alan Smith wrote:

Shane D. wrote:

Prof. Ennio Bonetti (Bologna) subjected it to X-Ray spectroscopy. The results confirmed that it was indeed alumina, with a purity of at least 99%.

I know Professor Bonetti. Experienced, very expert, and not a man to make a mistake IMHO. So now we have more confusion, not less.

This was classic Smith. Argumentum ad hominem, opinion not “humble.” This then explains what is coming.

If new information leads to confusion, it is a sign that something is not understood, or something is held as true that is error.

All “men” make mistakes. Women, too. Period. If they don’t make mistakes, they would never learn in depth and they would not become experts. However, it’s often not visible. The Bonetti analysis obviously depends on an assumption, that the alumina he was given was pure and representative of the reactor material. Someone also would have to “not make a mistake” in that regard. The same person, perhaps, who insisted, we suspect, on using the incorrect value, not calibrated at operating temperature or even close.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

I don’t doubt the Bologna professors analysis of the material he rcvd and tested but it certainly was not a sample of the Durapot 810 Lugano reactor material which was / is between 75% and 85% alumina based cement. This one is not hard folks.

Straightforward. Dewey likely knows the actual material, because Industrial Heat made that reactor. So, once again, information or lies?

Shane wrote:

Well Dewey, I am struggling. Sorry. Maybe you could provide another clue…Or better yet, just come out with it? And I would try and think harder, but then again, there have been too many times when I have (thought harder), only to come to find it was the questioner that needed to think harder.

Stop trying to “think harder,” Shane. It doesn’t work. Clarity does not arrive that way. Just be present with the information, perhaps read it over again, relaxed. We have a tendency to react negatively to what we don’t understand, it’s a fear response. It may make sense in a jungle and we are seeing some strange tracks on the ground that we don’t recognize. And then we hear a noise in the brush. Reacting quickly can save our life. But those reactions, how the amygdala works, don’t serve us when we need the undisturbed and massive association engine of the cerebral cortex. Trust that with a little patience, it will all be clear  — say it! — and see what happens!

What Dewey just wrote was quite clear. If the analysis showed 99% alumina, and given what Dewey claims to know, it was either in error or the sample provided was not representative. This is not the first time this has come up! However, Shane asks.

Dewey apparently answered: — but it has been censored, this is what shows now:

Post removed – muckspreading by implication – without evidence. Alan.

What Dewey said almost certainly gave more detail, and Dewey is one of the few people writing here (the only one? certainly the only non-anonymous one) with direct experience, and massive indirect communication with principals as well. Alan is promoting his own views, using his moderator powers. This was the Playground, where the rules were no rules. Routinely, in the Playground, trolls, anonymous and otherwise, have accused participants and public figures and scientists of greedy or corrupt manipulation. I don’t know what Dewey wrote, because Alan hid it. LENR Forum is immune to libel suits if it does not censor. If it does, it can become vulnerable. This is clearly unskillful moderation.

I assume that Industrial Heat did what they could to check out all those involved in what is coming to appear as a fraud. There would be “innocent victims,” such as, I assume, Bo Hoistad, who had an analysis done in May, 2016, of a sample of “fuel” provided to him by Rossi, showing, mirabile dictu, the same isotopic anomalies as the Lugano test sample, also handled by Rossi.

IH Fanboy wrote: (as redacted by Alan)

So you are accusing XXXXXXXXXX of malfeasance?
Name redacted. Alan.

Who, I wonder, is so above criticism that they cannot be accused of malfeasance, that the very mention of an accusation is to be erased, hidden? I have seen scientists of high reputation charged with malfeasance or, just as serious, gross incompetence, on LENR Forum, with nothing done about it.

“Rossi technology” is highly controversial, and there are public claims of fraud flying back and forth, and mere “malfeasance” generates such a strong response. No, this is Alan Smith insisting on his own views, and enforcing them with tools, and with no restraint by other moderators, hence allowing this is defacto policy. Alan Smith has an obvious conflict of interest: his company sells materials used for NiH research, which became popular through Andrea Rossi’s claims and demonstrations. If Rossi is a fraud, if certain scientists were deluded or insufficiently cautious (“malfeasance” if caution is expected), his business may decline. What Dewey wrote could cost him if it were allowed to stand. Not that LFH, his company, is rolling in profits, I think he is probably not making a profit, not even making expenses. But he is involved.

In a sane system, an involved moderator will be expected to recuse. But LF does not have a sane system. It’s a private plaything of the founder, who may or may not still have an interest in it. It is not open to expert participation in moderation, not even to expert suggestions.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Did somebody say something?

Classic DW.

Rigel wrote: (after deleting a post with a bad joke)

Since Abd can not post here – I would like to call attention to this if I may. (mods please remove this post but I doubt you will as I think you respect honesty)

His article entitled “Get out of the new road if you can’t lend a hand” is worth a good read. While I understand that he writes at length which does not fit in with the narrative here , I respect his depth even if I do not always agree with it. So a link to his blog. For now it is on his main page, but since he is prolific that will change shortly.

Thanks, Rigel. All posts start out on the main page, but that one was bumped down quickly, because of the new RvD filing. So far, no sign of censorship of links to CFC.net.

I always listen to folks here and then decide. I recommend we always get a point of view.

I have tried to contact him to ask questions but his blog does not provide an out of band email address. He would be well advised to see if wordpress is hampering his style. Since his older emails do not work and wordpress contact buttons do not seem to work either, I will assume he will read this. He follows us and we should look at his point of view, unless we challenge it.

All old email addresses should work. However, there are spam filters on everything, because I have had open email addresses for decades and the spammers noticed. Sometimes I miss good mail.

The ability of Forum users to send an email to other users appears to have been removed. That’s a drastic move, increasing the ability of moderators to control community conversations. As I recall, before the software was updated, that ability existed and Abd could still be emailed. Not now.

There is a form on Contact us from the main page. That form is not necessarily swift, but I will eventually see submissions. As well, lots of people are commenting, and comments are seen quickly, because I need to review all the spam or it will pile up. Comments do not require an account, but they do ask for an email address. So questions on posts can easily be asked, but I would also notice other questions and would generally email the user on request.

I could post on LENR Forum, but before, Alan threatened he would delete anything if I posted while banned. I don’t really care and will post if I see a need. I don’t. (Expected deletion is not nearly as harmful as unexpected deletion, which Alan has frequently done, to an extreme level. It’s just that most users don’t see it. There is no announcement, no log, and it can be difficult to even detect unless one knows just where to look.

Naturally, Alan Smith wrote:

If you think Abd trolling Peter Gluck is a good read, I am amazed.

Again, classic Smith. The post is only partially about Peter Gluck, and whether or not that part was “trolling” him is a matter of interpretation. What’s missed is that the post I wrote was a response to a post by Peter on his blog, which was attributed. If I was trolling, was he? However, trolling is defined by apparent intention, and what is apparent to one person may not be to another; the reality might be different from both. I deny that my intention is to incite Peter to being upset (“trolling”); it is actually the opposite, and that I fail is a result of attempting something difficult, that others have given up on. Reaching him.

Alan has always imputed this kind of motive, certainly for me. Was this a necessary comment here? We already knew that Alan saw no value in my work, he’d expressed this many times. However, it has always been the case with my writing that certain kinds of people dislike it. And others love it and others tolerate it.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

So Alan inserts himself again – and into the Playground no less.

What wisdom do you have to share with us about your decision to alter the conversation this time Alan? The Lugano reactor was Durapot 810 alumina cement, not anywhere close to the 99% alumina that was reported by Levi in the official report. Where would you like to start Alan?

It’s all so obvious.

Alan Smith wrote:

Dewey, your tactic of coming in here to wind people up and thus provide you with further opportunities to throw crap at all and sundry who ever took a coffee with Rossi has worn very thin. I would sooner talk to my cat.

Raw polemic, imputing reprehensible motive, contemptuous. And a “moderator.” There was a significant and substantive issue that came up, and what Dewey wrote probably involved “chain of custody,” an issue that has been discussed for a long time. This is not about anybody who ever took a cup of coffee with Rossi.” It is about someone heavily involved, if it was about Levi, the most obvious possibility. Alan is attempting to suppress discussion of something he dislikes: the possibility of fraud or serious professional error. He is doing so, not as one who “moderates” conversation, but who takes sides and preferentially moderates according to his own opinions. As Dewey noted, this is the Playground, a place where free speech — even libel — may be tolerated. The practice has generally been “anything goes” in the Playground. No change in policy has been announced.

There is no change in policy; rather, there is a loose cannon moderator and the others are unwilling to restrain him. Some may support him, it’s unclear.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Alan – You may need to think about being influenced by listening to so many cats. I am here to defend my peeps who are constantly under attack from the Planet Rossi remnant and have been since April 2016. There are not as many of them as there were before and their passive aggressive / misleading with lies style apparently doesn’t bother you in the least.

Are you so impacted by this exchange that a 99% pure alumina test result from a respectable professor at a respectable university from a the test reactor that was no where close to that purity is not fair game in the Playground of all places?

While Dewey gives his fair share, it was obvious obvious. Dewey and company have been roundly attacked, with what amount to lies, so was I, so was Jed Rothwell, so have been others. There was just an implication that Thomas Clarke was biased because he once worked for British Gas. All of this Alan ignores, but he goes after a real conversation with real possibilities. Not “proof,” but a strong indication that something is off. In a court, testimony is evidence, but Alan insists that there was no evidence. Dewey’s testimony is relatively strong evidence, if confirmed and clarified, as it has been, here. Does Alan pay any attention to the substantive argument here?

Alan Smith wrote:

Comments about an allegedly wrong test are fine, but unfounded speculation about how that might have happened which involves suggestions of deceptive behaviour by someone not on trial is not. As for your valiant defense of your Investment partners/friends, you know as well as I do that anti-IH comments from Rossi supporters are in almost all cases directed at you. If you posted useful comments instead of (mostly) insults the discourse here would be far more civilised and probably more informative. You need to think about that. Very carefully.

When something odd is seen, some contradiction, speculation about how it might have happened have been routine.

Who is “on trial?”? There is a civil dispute. As part of that Rossi alleged fraud on the part of IH. In response, IH alleged fraud on the part of Rossi, Johnson, Penon, Fabiani, and Bass. Levi has not been formally charged with any fraud by them. However, what did Levi know? It has long been suspected, and I wrote about this on LF without a problem, that Levi was Rossi’s agent there, Rossi exerted influence through him. We have seen on LF, randombit0, probably Rossi, argued for the position that Levi took, a position that is unsupported by any scientists who have looked at a more complete discussion. The Lugano paper looked good, until one started to look closely. There is language in the Lugano paper that clearly came from Rossi, where the scientists make a factual claim that they would not know was true. That had to come through Levi. That claim led to the major failure of the Lugano test, failure to calibrate. Long-standing Rossi position: he doesn’t need any stinkin’ control experiments. Look at all that heat! The alumina emissivity error was blatant and indefensible. Levi continued to defend it. Mats Lewan was stymied by an attack of “he said, she said,” promised to investigate — while pointing out that there must be something crazy about Thomas Clarke, why is he writing so much about this? — and then never followed up.

Thomas Clarke wrote so much because it was there. That is, circumstances can lead someone like him to become informed about something that few or none know about. So they write. And when what they see as obvious is dismissed by people without knowledge, they may write a lot! To people with less knowledge, this looks imbalanced. This is all very common, well known to those who have been following on-line discussion for decades. Ahem. The W.E.L.L., 1980s. Lewan was inexperienced, and apparently hoodwinked. Hopefully, he will do what he said he would do, follow up. That could be useful.

Dewey had just posted something quite substantive (what Alan claims to want), but because Alan could look at it and claim it was a personal attack (and he sees personal attack quite easily), Alan believes that he is justified in redacting it, even though the basic knowledge of whom Dewey might have criticized or insulted could not harm that person. Who is Alan protecting?

Personally, I’m interested in evidence. Suspicion can be useful, sometimes, in looking for evidence. I strongly prefer that inference be labelled as such, carefully. Was Dewey careful? I don’t know, but his followup here was not intemperate.

Personally, though, faced with an arrogant and condescending comment like the above, I’d be strongly tempted to tell Alan to go fuck himself, using those words. The world has changed.

By the way, I have a friend who was a police officer and who became a lawyer. Once, when an officer gave him a ticket in a particularly egregious exercise of poor discretion, and went back to his cruiser, the friend gave him the finger. The officer, red-faced, stormed back to the friend, and then … realized his professional training and walked back and drove off. That was a professional. Dewey has pointed out how LF moderation is “amateur hour.” In any case, here Dewey doesn’t tell Alan to shove it:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Alan – We know that the Bologna University folks have kept their integrity so there are no questions or concerns there – I have no doubt that they tested and reported on material that was delivered to them by Levi. Taking it from there, what part of the story would you like adjust from a Durapot 810 reactor at Lugano to 99% pure alumina material test result with Levi as the middleman per his own words?

Yes, obvious obvious. Not proof, but reasonable suspicion based on Dewey’s knowledge of the material. Lugano depending on an incorrect emissivity, then, can be traced to an analysis handled by Levi, the same person who probably insisted that running a full power calibration would damage the heating elements.

Levi is not on trial. However, many people have depended on the Lugano results to form opinions about the Rossi technology and NiH reactions. I would say that millions of dollars in labor have been wasted over this, entire aside from Industrial Heat’s involvement. Parkhomov’s work was done as a Rossi confirmation, i.e., Lugano. And then Alan’s business is based on attempts to independently verify NiH reactions at high temperatures. I.e., Lugano and Parkhomov.

It is essential that it be possible to discuss all this. Alan has been acting to suppress it.

Everybody should calm down. There is no innocent.

The few who have not been accused, in private or in public, of being paid by IH or by Rossi by someone they trusted for long should feel lucky.

For those who are surprised to be flamed, to have absurd arguments opposed to their solid facts, the end of a groupthink is more violent than the beginning. Mindguards are like the last fighters in Fort Alamo.

Anyway the silent majority appreciate moderation, and read the calm claims. Evidences and attachement would be more appreciated than humour.

And Alan Smith replied:

Thank you Alain. Well said.

I have seen this over and over. The voice of moderation, let’s all be nice, we want calm claims, etc. However, the situation is not balanced. Dewey was not upset, Dewey did not censor anyone, Alan did. Alain is correct, making the point that almost anyone who has spoken up on these issues has been attacked. It appears that Alan is protecting Levi. Why? Levi knew that he was getting involved with something highly controversial. The biggest problem with Levi is that he has stonewalled criticism. Is there some undue influence there?

Alain’s comment was more targeted toward Alan than Dewey, but Alain hates conflict. He wishes everyone would get along. However, Alain has been unwilling to intervene, and the politics behind that has been concealed. My conclusion was that LENR Forum was unstable and might not survive.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

I concur. Alan – Peace!

Alan Smith wrote:

Fine by me.

Of course it’s fine by Alan. What else is he going to say? He got what he wanted, the suppression of specifics about Levi, apparently. This is very common: there is a fundamental rift, a systemic problem, but it is interpreted as a personal conflict, that this is about Dewey vs. Alan. So if they stop fighting for now, that’s a good outcome, right? But that is not the real problem, and the real problems have not been addressed. Smith just demonstrated that he can, any time he likes, censor Playground content and get away with it, and an actual administrator — Alain — will do nothing. (Alan Smith is a “super moderator.” I assume that Alain as an administrator can remove privileges, or extract a promise not to repeat offensive behavior. Alain, however, may be restrained by deeper political forces that support Smith.)

monty wrote:

Dewey Weaver : Do u still have a bread and butter job or is pestering hanging around here the only thing you do?

Pure trolling. Dewey writes little, which takes little time, he just makes a few comments. I write a lot, and, yes, it takes a lot of time. So how does Alan handle this?

Alan Smith wrote:

Monty- stoppit!

Why should he stop? This is the Playground! Notice: trolling left in place. No action taken, other than a comment that Monty may or may not read. There is no clear policy.

 Dewey Weaver wrote:

Monty – I eat what I kill. What do you do for a living?

Male dominance. Standard internet phenomenon.

Rigel wrote:

Alan,

No I wrote a long post (not the one I deleted) to say that he should not ascribe age related illness to another contributor.

I don’t see how this is a response to Alan.

I did not say it in kind words either. But he rationalizes saying its his training. So it must be right.

Non sequitur. First of all, “should not” is a social rule. Rules exist for ordinary situations, and cannot cover all. Now, suppose someone actually has an age-related disability or “illness.” Can it be mentioned? Do you know what it’s like to have a condition and nobody will talk about it? I have “age-related disabilities.” I need to monitor them carefully. I do Sudoku, fast, with ink, because it shows me my state. It requires focus, and if I miss something, the Sudoku becomes a mess.

“It’s his training” is not applied to what I did. Where do I “rationalize” the ascription of age-related illness to another as having to do with my training? I was also a 12-stepper, where admission of a disability is known to be the most important step in recovery. I suppose that could be called part of my training, but I might also be pissed off about how Peter has attacked his old friends, who helped him when they could. It all gets tossed in the hopper. Peter is a blogger, expressing strong opinions, he’s in the kitchen. If it is too hot for him, he can sit down in the living room, go for a walk, spend time with his wife, whatever. Should he be protected? Why? What is special about Peter to require this protection?

I think the answer to that is obvious: age-related disability. However, hardly anyone knows how to actually help someone facing this, and most of us simply hope that the day never comes. I prefer to trust reality, to face it and accept it, in itself, and to see what remains possible.

Other than that, I read down into other words in the blog actually. Since his vocabulary is that of a writer; I tossed in “ludibrio, aut aliquid ioco” which to save some translation is “something said in jest or mockery” it was in reference to his earlier comment of calling something jape. He does not know anyones health status, but his response I will knowingly state back, will be that the other contributor has said that himself, and often.

I often comment on the obvious. and then someone comes along and says, OMG! You said it! Or others try to shut me up. I have a pretty good idea of Peter’s health status, Peter has written a great deal about it. Let me tell you mine: I could die at any time, but the odds are “probably not soon”, with caution and care. I could have died, easily, in October, I was in the hospital for three days. However, now knowing what is happening, the risk has abated. Probably.

He argues long past the need to. Naturally I would like him to come back, just as some others would.

“The need to” is established by what? I comment on what I see, bringing my experience, which has been wide-ranging. It does not necessarily have a point. It is me sitting down with my reader and making some comments. Readers can, if they choose, respond quite the same. It’s conversation, and not polemic. Sometimes. When I write polemic, it is quite different.

Something was said that night between two forum members, and poof he was gone. I just did not see where he violated the rules.

I did not violate any stated rules, but I obviously did violate a rule, that is not stated and will not be stated. On Wikipedia, I wrote an essay called Rule 0. When most of my work there was being deleted (all of which violated policy but not actual practice on Wikipedia), that essay was saved by a user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tothwolf/rescued_essays/Rule_0

My ban on LENR-Forum has never been explained, and I don’t know who made the temporary ban by Alan permanent. I’ve guessed, though. Alan’s ban made no sense, but, of course, once we understand Alan and how the Forum is operating, it makes complete sense. Even if the sense that it makes will eventually take the Forum into the ground. As the community of interest in LENR will grow, rapidly, starting soon, the real LENR Forum policies and practices will be completely inadequate, and yet they are more or less frozen in place.

So how would I know if I did? moderating is a hard job, I have said I could not do it. I meant it. But you have moderate, I recommend leaving the playground alone, let the kids fall off the swings then dust themselves off and get back on again.

That was the idea. The software may or may not cooperate. A problem is the intrusion of Playground activity on Unread Posts and Latest Posts. Block user does not stop this. Much better would be an associated unmoderated forum. That is the classic solution. People can look at it or ignore it.

MrSelfSustain wrote a post in which he completely misses that the discussion is in the Playground.

I agree with the call for peace. There is no benefit in provoking each other.

Ordinary good sense, it would seem. But people are going to do it. What then? Obviously, some think there is a benefit, either in provoking or in being provoked. If so and so is provoked, does that mean that someone provoked him or her? LENR Forum does not have a clear purpose and has no decision-making mechanisms other than ad hoc that give all power to moderators who were not chosen by the community, and who have no effective restraint, no clear policies to follow. (and what policy was written, at one point, has been ignored.)

And, for the most part, there’s very little benefit in debating the various issues discussed in this thread when we are lacking the complete perspective, the full collection of evidence, and countless facts.

We will never have them. Yes, we may have more, later, but not necessarily much more. What’s available now? “Debating” is a style of discussion that takes assumed positions and argues for them. Science actually does the opposite. Is LENR-Forum about science? Mostly not, but some. Some want it to be more than it is, about science, but then have no clue how to make it so. The software and the Forum structure do not cooperate with that, though it could be used, as it is, if there were administration which understands the issues and was willing to stand for the transformation. There isn’t.

I for one don’t want to argue, even though I make the mistake of doing so from time to time. All of our nerves would be less frayed if we just decided to wait until the trial begins.

Ah, the world would be a wonderful place, if only we …. (fill in the blank). Wait for what? Yes, questions come up that cannot be completely answered or answered with certainty until more evidence is available. However, there is a great deal of evidence already available. There is nothing wrong with looking at it and discussing it. There is nothing wrong with distinguishing between what we know from evidence, what we know from inference, what we guess as explanations of what we know, and then asking about and looking for more evidence …. or new ways of looking at what we have. This is what humans have done for millenia, when we have been smart, which we sometimes are.

It is obvious to me that we won’t even see 1% of the evidence until that happens.

I probably have more familiarity with the evidence we have than most, and I am not at all confident that we will see much more at trial. We do not know if there will be a trial. And then some of us have no confidence in the legal system and think it will be biased or manipulated by a host of fancy lawyers. Dewey has been telling us that there is much that has not yet been revealed. He is known to be in a position where he might know the fact of this. At this point, Dewey often asserts things on his own authority. We can appreciate this or condemn it, demanding “proof.” However, I often point to the common law principle: testimony is presumed true unless controverted. That does not mean “taken as proof,” it takes more than a mere statement, and normally one expects to see the witness, be able to assess their affect, all that. Nevertheless, what Dewey says he knows is a kind of evidence, and some of it has proven accurate. There is an attack, yesterday, on some of what he said, but this is based on a common phenomenon. Dewey’s statements were interpreted outside the range of his experience.

Dewey has hinted, now, that there was something unexpected in the customer area. Maybe a pump (which could possibly make sense of “0.0 barG”). If so, then when he referred to “only a radiator and a fan,” it was perhaps hyperbole, based on limited knowledge. Honest people make mistakes like that, all the time.

I read Dewey, as I read everyone speaking from experience, not as a perfect analyst, not as error-free, but simply and ordinarily honest. Dewey makes no secret of his disdain for Rossi and Planet Rossi, so I factor for that. It’s like Jed Rothwell, who is a person with enormous experience with LENR, and who is highly opinionated, and sometimes overstates his position. But his position is never completely stupid, he almost always has a point, I must agree, even if he might take it too far. Some, of course, think that about me. I would never dream of excluding Jed from the cold fusion community, he’s fully paid his dues, almost no matter what. However …. let me think about my case, since I can say it in my case, hopefully without causing offense: if I start causing harm with what I write, I hope someone will stand up to me, and inspire my friends (including that person) to support me in recognizing that and altering my course. My training, mentioned above, includes understanding that we have “blind spots,” and that includes things that we don’t know that we don’t know. Those things, in that realm, in fact, are where transformation comes from, so it’s not Bad.

If the so called “Plant Rossi” people (I absolutely hate that term because it lumps everyone together) want to present themselves as rational and reasonable, they should set the example for EVERYONE’S behavior by refraining from taunting, name calling, flame baiting, etc.

Planet. Rossi lives on a Planet, we all live on a Planet. Now, we could say Planet Earth, but … we all participate in smaller communities than that. Were I a Rossi supporter (I won’t call myself that, though I am not his enemy and do not think of him as Evil, unlike Peter Gluck’s accusations), I would own Planet Rossi, i.e,. identify with it and be proud of it (if not of every inhabitant of the place).

Words do that, lump distinct things together. It’s intrinsic to language. To me, studying the memes that flash here and there, Planet Rossi is obvious, a collection of memes, sometimes quite idiosyncratic. It is the memes that constitute the Planet, more than the individuals. MrSS, at times, pushes the memes, I’ve documented that.

This blog was called Planet Lomax by a troll. So? So far, this is almost entirely my blog. I am seeing, on LENR Forum, many of the ideas I have explored here, taken up there by some. Does that make those ideas Planet Lomax? Are the ideas accepted because Lomax Says, and since the future of the planet depends on Lomax’s technology, and we think he is a genius, they must be true, or are they accepted because independent consideration of the evidence has led them to similar conclusions?

I certainly hope for the latter, and this is why I often link to sources and document what I present, so that it can be independently checked and understood. It allows opportunity, as well, for my errors to be corrected. I can and do edit posts here as I find errors — or better expressions. Where there has been response, I will typically do this with a visible correction device (such as strikeout), by my goal here is, in part, to develop content, studies, coherently presented and linked.

My long-time technique for doing that has been to start with chaos and then organize it. The reverse, beginning with organization (a “point” and a systematic expression of it as polemic), I don’t trust. It is too easy for it to be led astray by attachment.

Alan Smith wrote:

Rigel wrote:

Alan,
No I wrote a long post (not the one I deleted) to say that he should not ascribe age related illness to another contributor.
I did not say it in kind words either. But he rationalizes saying its his training. So it must be right.

Rigel, you can see here that you just encouraged Alan to run with this. Just sayin’

It would never be right, and IMHO it is just bullying. Abd is obviously enjoying being banned anyway, it confirms his ideas about how special he is.

Other moderators have commented that poking Abd where he cannot respond is rude. Alan has no shame about it. However, to be sure, I can respond (here!), and have more freedom than I had before being banned. A lot more. Do I “enjoy” it? Sure, but not for the reasons he imagines. I enjoy it because I enjoy life, all of it. I have no opinion that it was a harm to me, it was probably a benefit. I requested unban, not to post there, but because I hoped for some respect, it was an opportunity for them. I was told it was impossible, they were way too angry. Now, angry about what? Notice: they have never said it. These are not people who know how to be open and constructive.

Peter is a blogger, very active, and he posts links to his blog in many places. The bully is Alan, because he actually deletes content, using privileged tools, and has banned a user he doesn’t like.

Peter was not forced to write about me, in the post that I responded to. What I wrote about Peter is a common opinion, but … kept private by nearly all, because it would be too rude to actually say it. I gain no special rights if I mention the senile dementia of anyone. If anything, it’s dangerous to me.

This is the paradox here: this is considered thoroughly offensive because the truth of it is recognized. If there were no signs of senile dementia, it would merely be something stupid I said.

Peter actually has been linking to my blog…. He had a fascinating dream night before last. It seems to refer to me. The story starts with what, as a father, musician, and sometimes music-teacher, I see as his abusive piano teacher who crushed his musical spirit, and who now tells him he is “dangerously stupid,” but then feeds him poison as an antidote.

Today, again, he points to several posts on my blog, including the allegedly offensive one.

His comment on today’s blog, though, is more sadness.

We could learn that repetition of untrue things, even mixed with true ones, has a dark, destructive side, 

The solo organ grinder who has usurped the ColdFusionCommunity  domain 

continues to write about me, a new over-wordy posting for today. The usual niceties
– louse, paranoia, my friends observe my decay..but today he amazed me with his stupid stubborn insistence that he can measure the diameter of an insulated steel pipe at the height of 3 meters, unobserved, with a screwdriver. 

“Ode to a Louse” is the title of a famous poem by Robert Burns. Peter seems to be implying that I called him a louse. What I had in mind was the poem, then I noted the title as a piece of irony. If anyone, the louse would be me.

His friends observe his decay. Is that true or false? To know, he would probably need to inquire and many people would lie (it’s called a “white lie”), but if he persisted, he would find the truth. The fact is he knows about at least some aspects of the decay. I am almost his age, high-functioning, I’ve been told, and I find it obvious if I look. I.e., obvious in myself. If he is not aware of it, he’s deluded.

Now, here, about that pipe. Peter has lied here, i.e., stated something blatantly false, about what I claimed. I did not state what he claims, this was his interpretive failure. If I’m wrong, someone, please, point it out!

The pipe in question, I explicitly denied is at a height of 3 meters, and Peter is simply persisting in what he has probably believed incorrectly, for a long time, and is now not even recognizing the contradiction. What I wrote is well-known, i.e., the return pipe is low, not high. What Peter wrote, as I pointed out, may explain some of his hysteria about Jed Rothwell. Peter thinks the return pipe from the customer area is high off the ground. That high pipe is the steam pipe. The pipe in question is low. This has all been discussed at length, but Peter apparently abstracts his ideas from what is discussed, missing major parts of it. He calls it a steel pipe, but, in fact, the steel pipe is not visible, it is covered with insulation. So to measure the pipe one would need to know the thickness of the insulation. How to measure that? I would not do this unless necessary, but it would cause no harm. I would push a screwdriver (or pocket knife) into the insulation, along a radial line, until it reached the pipe. It’s easy to push a screwdriver through insulation. When the blade reaches the pipe, I would put my fingers around the screwdriver blade and pull it out and could then see the insulation thickness, easily. From the outer diameter of the insulation, then, I would know, now, the outer diameter of the pipe.

What we actually know is that Murray simply wrote to Penon that the pipe was DN40. How he knew that is not stated, but he did not assert it as something controversial. Nobody with actual knowledge has contradicted this pipe size. Yet Peter thinks this all completely preposterous.

To stop me from measuring the pipe in that way, it would be necessary to keep me away from it. If I were watched closely, sure, I might be seen. But I might not, and the point was really that Murray was there, could have measured the pipe, one way or another, and asserted the size. At trial, if the pipe size becomes important, he will simply testify to how he knew the size.

One of his pearls:
 “From my point of view Peter’s focus on technology makes him stupid, because technology  serves life and not the other way around.”

I kind of like it too. Peter has missed something. It could be “life.” He has no care or concern for matters of “character.” It doesn’t matter if Rossi lies and cheats, as long as the E-Cat works, because Peter has staked his very identity on “LENR+” That narrowness of focus blinds him, “makes him stupid.”

Such a repetitive scandal source has to be ignored completely as Mme Ingrid.
advised why promote, give attention to such an individual? His somatic and mental health must be also taken in consideration.

Of course. Taken into consideration for what, though? Suppose a crazy person tells me my fly is unzipped. Should I ignore it? What, indeed, is the basis of “should”? — a question I always ask. People, like Alan here, tend to assume it is an absolute.

Unfortunately he owns now the coldfusioncommunity.net domain- that’s indistinguishable from a blasphemy, is an offense for the memory and creations of Martin Fleischmann and Gene Mallove and many other real scientists, dead and alive. What became ‘Cold Fusion community’!

Where was it before I registered that domain? When did I register it? Did anyone complain?

Coldfusioncommunity.net was registered March 5, 2013. I was preparing to go to ICCF-18, and went as media for Cold Fusion Community News, with a press pass, and I actively solicited writers and editors. IAs usual, nobody showed up for that role. This was announced on the CMNS list, as I recall. I also asked for financial support. I was actively encouraged by prominent cold fusion scientists. Some support did appear. By the end of 2013, I was organizing Infusion Institute, Inc, and there was substantial support, the bulk of it appeared in 2015, as a result of my writing.

As I have often written, right now I am chief cook and bottle washer here. However, this is an open community, though there will be organizational structure. It is essential that I replace myself, that is part of my training in community projects. So far, no volunteers. Again, that will change.

Peter is not banned (and he has not banned me from his blog.) I find useful material on his blog, mixed with some drek. For example, today he has:

2) Updated
Good prospects for Leonardo Corp./Andrea Rossi lawsuit vs. Cherokee Investment Partners/Thomas Darden
This is truly funny. thenewfire is a blog that generally promotes pro-Rossi and anti-IH conspiracy memes. Yes, that page was updated, with one more document. It consists of a fairly incoherent presentation of case pages, erratically updated, far less useful than my case page, which is organized and indexed for each access, and providing nothing more than Eric Walker’s googledrive collection. But the title! I know of nobody who has an understanding of law and legal process who is thinking that Rossi v. Darden is showing “good prospects.” I’ve talked about a “Wabbit,” i.e, the idea that Rossi might pull a rabbit out of a hat, some killer evidence, but recent events have shown that is is very unlikely. He never had enough evidence to file that action, he had badly managed the business of his Agreement with IH. Or worse, as came out, there was apparent fraudulent representation. Almost certainly, Rossi is screwed, as Dewey has been saying. I do not depend on anything from Dewey to say that!
Peter has some material from Rossi’s blog, JONP, where, as usual, a probable sock puppet says what Rossi wants to have said …. generally lying … and then Rossi runs with it, usually saying “I can’t comment on matters before the court,” but here he actually comments.
Kraig

February 7, 2017 at 2:13 PM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
IH has published reports that say that the data measured by Fabiani are equal to the data measured from the ERV, which gives evidence that the data are fake.
Can you comment?

Andrea Rossi
February 7, 2017 at 5:16 PM

Kraig:
I think everybody has noticed that we do not comment issues to be discussed in Court, while IH- Cherokee Fund Partners try to raise mud in the blogs. Any comment on this fact is useless.

In general, let me say that if you measure data with two certified instrumentations on the same thing in the same point or close, obviously the data are the same, unless one of the instruments is nuts.

IH has not “published reports that say” what “Kraig” claimed. They have not made the argument described. IH and Cherokee are not active in the blogs at all. Dewey Weaver is not a party to the lawsuit and IH is not responsible for what he says, and I don’t recall Dewey making that argument either. When Rossi says he does not comment, he is almost certainly lying. He just uses other names to do it.

What happened is that Rossi published ERV data and the utility data for JMP, as an argument against allowing IH to amend their complaint against Fabiani. It was actually irrelevant to the legal argument, this was Rossi grandstanding for his fans, who have started to notice that he has presented little evidence. So, bang! Evidence! But irrelevant where placed. IH, responding, published a chart showing three sources for power usage: Penon, Fabiani, and Florida Power and Light *by the day,* whereas Rossi had given monthly billing.

That chart shows total coincidence between Penon and Fabiani, but IH was not claiming what “Kraig” asserts. They were showing another anomaly: that there were days where Penon and Fabiani, in complete agreement, show more power input to the reactor than is shown by FP&L to the entire JMP facility. Something is off, and that is actually the point. It is evidence that there may be an error, and at this point IH need not prove it, it is enough that they assert the problem. Much more will come out in Discovery, and questions can and will be asked about all this.

There is an issue, not that that data is necessarily fake, but that it is not independent. Penon, the “ERV,” did not actually make the measurements. He wasn’t there. Possibly Fabiani did, or possibly this was computer-recorded. Who designed and ran the computer system? Fabiani. Rossi ignores what was being measured: almost certainly the readings on a meter that reports kilowatt-hours. That figure is constantly changing. The power consumption was changing. My guess is that there was no automated collection of this, it was manually done. Someone wrote down the power usage numbers once a day. The way life works it would not always be at the same time. That Fabiani and Penon coincide simply show that it was likely it was one data collection process, not two. And since Penon wasn’t there …. aw it is so bloomin’ obvious!

This proves almost nothing except to point up the lack of independence. Rossi has always claimed that Fabiani’s was an “IH man” there. Not. This was Rossi’s old friend, hired by IH, I’m sure, because that’s what Rossi wanted. I do not know if Fabiani actually was a party to any fraud. IH will probably have a chance to show that, what they have will be revealed in discovery — to Fabiani! We, as the public, may or may not see this. If it goes to trial, much will be revealed there.

Peter is republishing what is on JONP. He has often republished radically uncivil accusations against IH, with no journalistic balance. Now, it’s a blog, i.e., the opinions there are his. He has the right to do that.

But so do I.

Peter has republished a lie from JONP without any balance, as if it were news. He doesn’t care. He also lied about what I wrote, as can be seen above. I did not write that I “can measure the diameter of an insulated steel pipe at the height of 3 meters, unobserved, with a screwdriver.”

Rather, I explicitly corrected Peter’s assertion that the pipe in question was at that height.

At any point, Peter could wake up, notice that he was confused, and begin to recover.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *