I’ve been seeing spots of interest — and bubbles of mishe-gas — on LENR Forum and missing the hot format of immediate comment, even though, long-term, what I’m settling into here is much more useful.
I started using hypothes.is for commentary because Steve Krivit filed a copyright violation notice on a copy of a page of his here. It’s an interesting tool.
I will create tools here to link to my hypothes.is comments (or others if contributors take it up), and here are some to start. (If you don’t see annotations after following a link, look for a small “>>” link at the top right. That should open up annotations.)
Look down the page as linked through hypothesis.is. The page should show highlights on text on which there is public comment. With a hypothes.is account one may create comments or reply to existing ones. It’s a browser extension allowing one-click setup of annotation of any web page.
The links below are actually all the same, they point, through hypothes.is to the same LF page.
response to Zeus46.
response to joshg
response to IH Fanboy
comment on Paradigmnoia just giving a link
and then The next Rossi v Darden page.
Comments may be made here, or, with a hypothes.is account, comment replies can be entered with the annotations.
More Rossi v Darden threads on LENR Forum
Rossi vs. Darden developments 143
Rossi vs. Darden developments 144
Rossi vs. Darden developments 145
Rossi vs. Darden developments 146
Rossi vs. Darden developments 147
Still not caught up. When I do, I may add information to the above, if I find some annotation worth calling attention to. Anyone may also do that in comments below. Or, hey, you could annotate our pages.
My annotations may also be edited or deleted, comments here, or as replies to annotations, may include suggestions. Be nice, and you will be respected.
Looking at the above links today, there are problems. There are now “orphan” annotations. In at least one case, it appears that LF admin may have deleted a post, which then causes all subsequent paginations to be off. The post number appears to shift, but I’m not sure of that yet. LF is a moving target. So hypothes.is may not work reliably. There are also, it appears, hypothesis.is bugs. A URL with “no follow” in it was generated for an LF page, and the URL was badly formed, with an extra quote mark. I’ll be looking at this.
I attempted to annotate this post by THH. I can load this in my browser, which has the hypothes.is extension enabled, and I can see my annotations. However, hypothes.is generates this URL for the page:
This, as would be expected, loads the root page for that thread, and then my annotations are shown as orphans, with no reference.
If I, instead, generate the link for a specific annotation, say the first on that post, I get
I get the annotation, all right, but orphaned, and the original page is not displayed, rather the root.
If I go to the original page,
I get a message that “there are no annotations in this group.” However, if I follow the link to the post, I can then see them. There are two annotations shown as orphaned. I recognizer the original post for one. It was not on that page, it was on one of the pages listed above. I think. This was the annotated text: “This notion that opinions are somehow magically equal or that any notion you dream up is somehow valid because it is your opinion is new-age nonsense”
This page has records from the hypothes.is feed, for me:
This was the post:
Hey, I’m the New Age, my first teacher actually wrote a book, “This is the New Age, In Person,” and Jed Rothwell is sometimes a beknighted curmudgeon. However, he is also an expert on all things LENR, world-class, even though he is “only” a writer and LENR librarian. Librarians learn a lot.
The real New Age isn’t each and every stupid idea. It’s humanity waking up.
The quoted material at the top is from Jed Rothwell. With some effort — google doesn’t find it, so I manually went through Jed’s contributions, I found the post: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=53407#post53407
With that URL loaded, the comment shows. But the comment actually is on a quotation of Jed: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=53413#post53413
The way that LF handles paging and links apparently breaks hypothes.is. I’m sure LF staff will be crushed, absolutely crushed, to realize this. The annotation returns a direct link of https://hyp.is/V8qVJBNQEeeNLe9YiXMQdw/www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/
which returns the annotation, with text in strike-out, since it isn’t on the loaded page, which is page 1 of that thread. I’m going to see if there is a workaround here. Meanwhile, back to the drawing board and some real work. Darn. I thought I could just add snarky comments to my heart’s content. Maybe my heart doesn’t like snark. Wouldn’t surprise me.
This is related to what is happening, perhaps. My guess is that the pages changed enough to break the annotation links for some annotations. Something else is going on with the inability to properly link to annotations that are still connected with the necessary page load. The problem is difficult, and there is apparently a current effort to support previous page versions, where orphans are caused by page changes.
An obvious cause of page change on LF could be post deletions, which would be enough to break some remaining annotations because the page number would change and also the post number (which is calculated at display time, it is not fixed) — the site-wide post number is constant, but the number of a post within a thread is recalculated based on all undeleted posts.
Some user or mod edits might also affect some annotation anchors.
Posts deleted by the author remain in the LF thread with a small-text note. Ordinary moderator deletions also remain, but some mods elect to totally delete, which then changes pagination and post thread number, and I previously saw that LF staff didn’t care about breaking incoming links (and took steps to break them, deliberately, which effort was abandoned when a workaround was created here).
48 thoughts on “Trying out hypothes.is with LENR Forum”
The IH MSJ is impressive – certainly wrt the Rossi complaint, which will surely fail. I’d recommend anyone interested in this matter to read it, and Abd’s excellent page makes this easier.
However it is right to reserve judgement till we see the corresponding answer (if we will get to do that). It is not easy to be fair without seeing both sides. As Abd points out the Rossi MSJ is not very helpful.
The whole second floor heat exchanger story is fascinating and just possibly an area where Rossi has overreached himself. We can say definitively that what Rossi says he used could not have dissipated anything like 1MW (not even 200kW). See many posts on LENR Forum. We cannot say from evidence so far whether it existed though my guess would be that it did not exist, the extreme lack of evidence makes that seem likely. If IH can prove that Rossi will be in trouble.
First of all, outside of a few sporadic comments, I have not analyzed the IH MSJ. Obviously, seeing the documents, impressions form. I intend to do this systematically, and in such a way that if anyone cares to see what I’ve seen, they can follow along. Yes, there will be a reply from Rossi to the IH MSJ, and hopefully by then I will be familiar with the IH side. The first and most crucial goal of the IH MSJ is to dispose of the Rossi claims, and Rossi is not trying to win his suit with an MSJ, I’m pretty sure that the lawyers told him it was pretty dead. The hope they are working on is defensive, the counterclaims.
I’m really interested in the process of examining evidence, of becoming informed and of basing opinions on evidence rather than on first impressions or wishful thinking. I am creating in the document work, at this point, what I’d actually want a judge to look at, and we will be able to go through the process, step-by-step.
I have occasionally seen flaws in the IH “material facts.” Let’s put it this way, some are more clearly fact than others. But none of this, so far, reaches to the core of the Rossi suit. I will be giving the Rossi pleadings full opportunity to strut their stuff, as will, I assume, the Judge. But right now it seems to me that Rossi Count 1 is completely demolished by evidence, and I’ve seen no serious indications otherwise, and the Judge almost did it last year with the IH MTD. Nothing that has come to light, yet, has reversed this.
Mostly, at this point, I’m studying the lawsuit. The question of whether or not Rossi ever had any excess heat is secondary. What the lawsuit has done — already — has pulled the rug out from under reasons to think he had something real. There will still remain the possibility, unless Rossi himself acknowledges it was all fake or mistake.
IH may be introduce IR evidence, by the way, there could be a way. We are not limited, and IH will be able to disclose what they know about this when the suit is over, if they care. There are piles of circumstantial evidence on this, but diehards will demand proof. And will never get it. We still see people arguing for endothermic reaction, apparently not understanding the problems, which I’m not about to repeat here, at this time.
This comment was on Lenr Forum.
17 hours ago
I was curious how many Rossi defenders have read his depositions? Hard to read them IMO, and stay supportive. Especially when they had to break his depos into 3 sections, because of the 3 roles he played, or 3 hats he wore:
194-03 “Rossi as Leonardo”
194-07 “Rossi as Andrea”
194-08 “Rossi as JMP”
If you read fast, you can go through them in 45 minutes….trust me, you will not be bored! I would be particularly interested to know what Peter Gluck thinks after reading?
Jack Cole, Eric Walker and sigmoidal like this.
Could you direct me to the
Court documents Shane refers
Also Barry West testimony.
@ Sam, quote from above;-
“I was curious how many Rossi defenders have read his depositions? Hard to read them IMO, and stay supportive.”
I think at this point, the recent revelations contained in the various documents released on the Rossi / IH litigation will have virtually no negative impact on those who remain supportive of Rossi. Anyone who was even a little bit logically analytical of the truth of the matter would have abandoned him long ago, so all who are left on Planet Rossi have by this stage had their ability to detect fraud, bludgeoned into a state of senseless acceptance of even the most glaring falsehoods. I take as proof of this, the latest poll on ECW declares 50% of readers still think the Ecat works as Rossi claims.
Good grief! I would have put it at less than 1%, but no. A full 50% think it’s all on the straight and narrow. The mind boggles.
I have no doubt that in the event of poor Andrea finally getting his scrawny ass severely kicked by a negative finding against him, these remaining stalwarts will remain of the firm belief that he is the unfortunate victim of a rigged and false outcome, regardless of how damning his own evidence may be against him.
I just voted on that poll last
week and put it to 50 percent.
Both A.R. and T.D. asses
should get a kick for not
working together as a team.
I hope somehow they can
get things back on track
with the QuarkX.
The only reason to think QuarkX is real is Rossi Says, and what the documents are showing is that Rossi Says many things that are, at best, wishful thinking, and sometimes positively intended to decieve. Case in point, “Johnson Matthey.” Rossi very clearly claimed in 2014 — there is no reasonable doubt — that the “customer” was “really” Johnson Matthey. The legal strategy has become, “Okay, it wasn’t Johnson Matthey, but it doesn’t matter. So we lied. So what? Sue us!” Wait … IH is countersuing over exactly this. And it appears to me that Johnson may be … the legal technical term is “screwed.” He could lose his license to practice, in addition to some significant damages.
Rossi does play games.
Rossi does say things I
do not like.1) I got the
money he he he.2)Thanks
for your sympathy.
3:I.H. are ametuers.
My reply to Rossi on
3 is if you think so show
them what you got since
you don’t think they are
Profesional like you
think you are.
Rossi does play games. Rossi does say things I do not like.1) I got the money he he he.
I don’t know where he said that. However, Rossi commonly states as fact what is his fantasy or idea or something he wants to happen. He had the idea of “JM.” He had the idea that he would work with JM, and maybe he even talked with someone from JM. To him, the “customer” idea solved a host of problems, it was a masterpiece, and I understand him thinking that. I declare possibilities all the time, it’s part of my training. But I do not represent them as completed fact. It appears that Rossi lied to IH about Johnson Matthey, but it is entirely possible that he actually carefully confined his words in such a way as to be speaking something true or close to true. However, with those words he created an impression, the impression he wanted. Rossi has no sense of there being any problem with doing that. After all, he’s a total genius, his technology is going to transform the planet, so what do a few minor misunderstandings amount to?
Either it is pure justice, Rossi is getting what he deserves, or it’s tragic. In some cases, though, it’s very difficult to keep the framing I’m presenting here, that Rossi did not necessarily know he was lying. His reactions to IH wanting to communicate directly with JM, for example.
Johnson, as well, might seem to be an innocent victim. But why did he sign the OFAC declaration with what he knew was false? His answer might be quite what Rossi would say, birds of a feather flock together: they were planning on sitting up a trust in England. To make it so. But, wait, what about JM? The “entity in England” was designed, obviously, to allow the idea that it was JM, in fact.
Those depositions are devastating. From what I’ve seen so far, IH might even prevail on one or more counterclaim counts without trial. It can depend on what Rossi et al pull up and can show as sworn testimony and attested evidence that could possibly turn this around at trial.
2)Thanks for your sympathy.
I’m more sympathetic than you might think. Loyalty is a virtue, for example. It is simply that there are limits, there is a point where loyalty can cause actual harm. Simply expressing opinions here or elsewhere is not over that edge, and especially if you are willing to consider responses and ideas that might be new for you.
3:I.H. are ametuers.
Amateurs. It means people who do things for love. Actually, IH is managed by professionals, professional investors, and are the kind of people who manage professionals such as engineers and inventors. I’ve known engineers who were their own managers. It’s generally a bad idea. Put it this way: an inventor who is his own manager has a fool for a manager. This is a variation on the famous Feynman saying, “Don’t fool yourself, because you are the easiest person to fool,” or about people who are their own lawyers.
My reply to Rossi on 3 is if you think so show them what you got since you don’t think they are Profesional like you think you are.
Rossi may impress some with his genius, but he has huge gaps in his knowledge, and seems to be incapable of recognizing knowledge in others. If what someone else says seems different from what he says, the other person must be wrong. This is a primitive ontology, and obviously disempowering, long-term. Our discussion of “Kw-h/h” was a case in point. It is not that the terminology he habitually uses is wrong, KW (or KWh/h) is a measure of power, and KW-h is a measure of energy, but the “h” simply means “hour,” and, yes, they do cancel, even if some leave the “h” in. Rossi then cited an authority as if that authority agreed with what he was saying, and that unnamed person — it was obviously me — was, for Rossi an idiot, to be pitied, but I looked up that authority on the point, and he literally said what Rossi had claimed was wrong.
And Rossi never backtracks and says, “Oops! I was wrong” Look at the Mats Lewan account of the Hydro Fusion test that Rossi then presented to IH as being a deliberate failure, to get out of a contract. Rossi showed in that case how he would manipulate the decisions of others through deceptive actions. One way or another! One of the puzzles here is how Mats Lewan is still clinging to his trust in Rossi. Rossi either lied to Lewan or to IH. Pick one, or both.
Sam, From the record so far, the party which cannot work as part of any team is our highly esteemed inventor(?) Andrea R.
Every team member or cashed up partner has to this point been shafted.
Look back to what happened to any of them and see how they fared.
Defkalion, Prometeon (read the divorce letter of Aldo Proia to see what it looked like from the inside), and more recently, his all powerful and cashed up partner Industrial Heat. Not t0 mention his numerous paid up licensees who Rossi now admits were shamefully shafted to shake them out of the way for IH to take their place. Rossi emails indicate this was entirely his doing. With Rossi as your friend, who needs enemas?
All evidence so far indicates Rossi is impossible to work with, no matter how tolerant and forgiving they are of his idiosyncrasies. When they finally press for real evidence of a working device, the relationship ends. That is the record so far.
The most probable reason for this is that there is no working product.
To me, that was obvious since October 2011.
Everything since then has only served as confirmation.
People commonly believe what they want to believe. That’s their right, but, as recently mentioned in popular media, they do not have a right to “alternative facts.” Fact is fact. Facts do not express opinions. The interpretation of fact is distinct from the expression of fact. I’ve been attempting to encourage that distinction. Sane judgments are made by considering all facts, not just facts supporting one side or point of view. And then, in the real world, we may never have complete information, and we may indeed make judgments, but if we are clear, we know what we are doing. Legal process is becoming very visible in Rossi v. Darden. I’ve been following court cases for years, but never before with such intimacy, looking at such a volume of documentation. The judge will not issue Summary Judgment unless the matter is totally clear, unless a contrary conclusion is essentially impossible.
This is just a guess but the numbering system on the docket that Eric Walker provided is similar to what you are requesting, so look at his (I think google drive) links.
The numbering system refers to the actual docket. What Eric provides is not the docket, but a compilation of files from the docket. You can find the same files linked from our docket coverage, the file numbers are the same, but it is far easier to use our page for study, and we also have docket dates and more detailed annotation, all designed for easy and direct access.
If you look at our docket coverage, all the files are identified. The depositions start showing up 03/09/2017. I’m not sure I’d approach it this way. Rather, what I’m doing is annotating the IH Motion for Summary Judgement, starting by annotating the IH Statement of Material Fact supporting it. This gives the facts behind the IH position and motion.
Understand that the deposition exhibits generally are not the full deposition. There are some exceptions.
I wanted to start with the Rossi MSJ, because Rossi is clearly the underdog here, and should be allowed to present his case fully, in this Court of Cold Fusion Community Opinion. However, that MSJ is such a mess that, after starting, I realized it might all be moot quickly. It’s a lot of work. However, if someone wants to do that work, this early, let me know. The real action, my opinion, will be with the IH MSJ. Rossi et al will present replies, there will be a back and forth, before the Judge rules.
Very important to realize at this point. In common discussions about the case, people give opinions and do not distinguish between fact and interpretation — and personal judgments of the witnesses. In Motions for Summary Judgment, all testimony will be presumed true unless clearly controverted. Vague opinions like “Rossi has always lied” will not be relevant at all, and will not be considered. (And I see little in the Rossi depositions that is clearly lying; rather, what he reveals in depositions exposes just how “careless with truth” Rossi has been on JONP — and in his dealings with IH.) As well, opinions like “IH are lying scum” are irrelevant. Are they lying scum willing to perjure themselves, possibly to go to prison for it? So someone who is a multimillionaire, controlling billions of dollars in investments, will through caution to the winds and risk prison? Not usually. It’s happened, but it’s rare, and any sane attorney would advise strongly against it.
As well, there is opinion recently expressed that what matters in a lawsuit is how much one pays the attorneys. Those who can afford high-priced attorneys win. This is highly misleading. Yes, for defense, highly skilled attorneys can make a big difference. Consider O.J. Simpson and his murder trial. But, then, in civil court, he lost. What I’m seeing with Jones Day is simple competence, almost entirely — and nobody is perfect. Rossi’s case seems to be to be being pursued with diligence by Annesser and Chaiken, almost too much diligence (it appears desperate to me, and may appear that way in court). One might notice that the Rossi MSJ is heavily based on a technicality, throwing out all IPH claims because of an allegedly defective corporate deposition by Fogelman, which appears to me to be a losing argument. Even then the Rossi MSJ is only “partial,” attempting to defend against counterclaims (most of which were filed by IPH).
I am going to be inviting people to help create probative documents here, and I consider this important because even after Rossi v. Darden is resolved in the courts, there are going to be claims that it was all unfair, this is proof of a conspiracy, etc. Yet what I’m seeing reviewing the documents presented by IH is a very clear case, and, indeed, I find it difficult to understand how Planet Rossi continues to support Rossi after seeing this, so my present impression is that such people are not actually reading the documents, but are just reacting to impressions.
Hence I will be inviting Planet Rossi — and others — to search for errors and misrepresentations. At this point, since the documents I’m working are intended to be neutral, it will just be errors, but subsequent documents will go into analysis, and I have no problem with presenting multiple points of view in that. As long as they are rooted in fact! (And even if they are not, but, as mentioned elsewhere, the penalty for ignorant proclamations is that someone might point it out.)
The study document I’m working on is still incomplete, but you can see where I am. If you start from the beginning, you will see that cited sources are linked to actual pdf pages. This has been completed up to a point. For efficiency, I found that opening up a document and then looking at all references to that document was more efficient than proceeding in page order. But I hope to complete this today. Meanwhile, I’d suggest opening up the study page, read the paragraph, and follow the links and read the cited material. Keep track of what you have seen and note any errors. You can then comment on the page that you have read paragraphs n1-n2 and have checked the links and did not find errors (or report any errors). The gain from this is twofold: you will be helping create tools that support study of the case, and you will become familiar with the evidence. Later, all this will be done with the back-and-forth. To whatever extent you find time to do this, you will help others and yourself.
Discovered more. See Update2.
Abd – also note that posts are moved from one thread to another. In this case, it looks like a lot of posts were moved to the Playground. This will break the links and change the numbers for both threads. Though the mods at LF may not be happy to have invisible snarks attached to their site they are possibly not aware of them either, so this link-breakage is likely not directed at you but simply to shift off-topic posts to the desired thread.
mmm… did I say they were directed at me? They waited quite a time before moving the posts, increasing the risk re external links. The practice and software at LF does not create redirects, if I’m correct. And it resorts a thread into differing pages, when posts are moved. There is no real way to tell immediately if a post has been moved or completely deleted. I cut my teeth on MediaWiki, where there is an audit trail, so to speak. (That trail can be hidden by admins, but … that practice is generally disapproved and an admin hiding their own misbehavior is highly disapproved, I more or less got a Wikiversity sysop to lose his privileges over that. (And, of course, his friends never forgave me for that, but it was his misbehavior, and I didn’t make the decision, I merely pointed out the behavior.)
Here, I could easily cover up what I’m doing, though I think I’d be more or less screwed if someone keeping the RSS feed. Heh! I could claim they were lying, there are people who have no qualms about behavior like that — or they would imply it if they don’t want to directly lie.
Hypothesis seems to break on some or many LF pages, possibly due to how LF paginates. See Update.
I thought at first that LF staff had fully deleted a post, which would then break the pagination (i.e., change it for many later posts). But that did not happen here, AFAIK. That is a problem that could affect some annotations, and may point to a rather knotty structural problem for internet annotation. The hypothes.is premise is that they do not host the original content, and to avoid a problem with content editing or deletion, they would need to. This could be solved by sending users a prompt notice of content change, with the original content included (as Google maintains a cache for a time.) This, however, would probably break their servers, requiring far more activity. Ah, well, it still works for truly static content.
At the moment on LF there’s discussion of the water-flow, and how (with a few exceptions) the flow is almost precisely 36m³/day when 4 reactors are running, and 27 or 18m³/day when 3 or 2 reactors are running. The data is taken at 9:30pm every day by Penon (though he wasn’t actually there a lot of the time). One thing that seems to have been missed is that the numbers (even if correct) also imply that switching the reactors off would thus also have to occur at the same time (9:30pm) every day there was a change. Since it seems reasonable that one of the reactors would not be turned off unless it failed, that means that any failures happened also at 9:30pm and, until they were switched off, they were putting out their full output. If they were putting out their full output, there would seem no reason to switch them off or to say they had failed….
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=54013#post54013 and following comments.
Basically, this shows that the tabulated data was invented rather than read from the meters, and somewhat incompetently at that. We’d expect to see any failures happen anytime in the 24-hour period and thus even if the water-flow was precisely measured we’d see intermediate values for water-flow at any change of the number of reactors in service. Though maybe Jed didn’t pick up on this consciously, it’s one of the things that shout “false data” about the Penon report so I’m sure he recognised it.
Note – though Hypothe.is is a neat way of commenting other websites, putting this as a separate comment here allows replies to this point in this site, and complies better with the KISS principle anyway. Anyone can read it and reply without needing an extra log-on. I haven’t joined LF since there is a lot of flame and trolling there, even though some of the comments are good and have taken a fair amount of background research. Rossi’s explanations have been dissected and shown to be fabricated rather than truth – no fans in the windows, no extra lines to heat-exchangers, no massive heat produced, no GPT. Since Rossi’s heat-dissipation explanation is under oath, then Rossi has committed perjury as well. Things don’t look good for Planet Rossi. As far as I can see we’re just waiting for the Fat Lady now.
Anyone can also read the hypothesis annotations without a log-in. Log-in is only required to create or reply to annotations, for obvious reasons. We can also point to and discuss annotations here. I prefer to keep this post to pointing to annotations, though this might be replaced with a page that organizes and points to all such. Meanwhile, if I find time today, I may create a discussion of the water flow issue. Thanks.
(I am still learning how to use hypothes.is. There are “groups” with defined membership, for example. They can collaborate on annotating a page, without interference from others who might troll, etc. I have not explored this at all. I may also start up a wiki for generating collaborative documents, though this could generally be done on Wikiversity. (I don’t know anyone interested in LENR who is banned there. Wikipedia bans are irrelevant to Wikiversity.)
Some errors: “Playground 59” points to the page without going through hypothes.is, and “Playground 60” points to page 58 again. The RvD annotations work OK.
Thanks, Simon, every little bit helps. It should be fixed now.
Abd – actually, page 58 is now wrong and points to page 59 instead. Since there seems to be a complex encoding in the hyp.is link it’s probably not something we can correct, but needs to be exactly right to find the annotations.
I think the problem is in my WordPress editing. Opening up a link to edit it, one can easily open up an adjacent link and it’s not obvious. However, I just realized there is a whole-page link, I was simply linking to one of the annotations. That’s the coding. It’s not necessary. The Playground links should now be fixed. If the other links work, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
From now on, though, links will be whole-page links which are very easy to understand, they are the page link preceded by the hypothes.is URL.
I am just beginning to explore the possibilities with hypothes.is. If usage becomes widespread, it becomes very difficult to actually ban a user from commenting. That is, in fact, one of the purposes of the annotation site and movement.
The hypothes.is TOS.
Civility is required, but enforcement may be thin. As well, anonymous accounts are encouraged; combine this with volunteer administration and what I expect to see is more user-controlled filtering. Unless they decide to be the judge of “civility,” which can be difficult and error-prone.
Alcoa called asking if I could help ID the right leader to approach for a Planet Rossi smuckt*rd festival sponsorship outreach program they are in the process of developing. It was from the lightweight tin foil division and I gave them Alan’s name and hope that was okay with everyone since IHFB is taking some voluntary (was that guy luckyassprescient or what??) time away from the front line.
I had thought, going to ICCF-18, of raising funds for my participation by selling souvenir tinfoil hats. I didn’t do it, not getting a Round Tuit, but I still think it was a great idea. One funny aspect of the flap on LF was that there was objection to special treatment for those with special knowledge. This is all part of the “everyone is equal” standard BS. Yes, in some respects and under some conditions, it is proper (i.e., socially useful) that everyone is equal, but in real life, we are not equal. Those with knowledge are not equal to the ignorant. If Random Idiot can anonymously express random idiotic opinion, others may call it what it is. But who determines “what it is”? In fact, “idiot” is usually what we call a “story,” i.e., not a fact. However, if we limit ourselves to facts, we limit human imagination. Stories can be useful, myths can be useful; the matter then becomes one of determining usefulness. However, it’s obvious that to encourage the participation of the knowledgeable is useful, hence I’d encourage the participation of Rossi socks, but without protection against “doxxing.” Rossi knows his own arguments and positions. And then other mechanisms would be used to protect against abuse. For deep conversation, a closer approach to civility limits is required. Trolling would never be allowed, beyond accepted banter.
This would require more intrusive administration; Alan Smith is intrusive, but in an abusive way. For example, one should never outright delete an author’s work without being able to recover it. Alan takes the easy road, easy for him. Not for those whose material he deleted. The biggest problem on LF is not Alan Smith, but lack of clear, transparent, review process. Alan, many times, took face-palm abusive actions that were pointed out. The LF “response” was to allow and encourage him to ban users who pointed out the problems.
LF is not what it claims to be, “the independent low energy nuclear reaction community.” It is, rather, an activity of a very few, controlled ultimately by one person, and without review process. Peter Gluck complained bitterly about my calling this blog “coldfusioncommunity,” but never directed that complaint to LENR Forum, which makes a claim more blatantly, “the independent.” This blog was created to seed community participation, to empower it. As a seed, I control it, but as it grows, my power will recede, and that is essential to me. After all, I will die, and the ancient saying is “die before you die.” This is a community project, seeking leaders. If they don’t show, it will, itself, die. That’s just the way it is. (However, I have full admin backup for all my domains, in case something happens to me.)
Great article on tinfoil hats. Apparently this is traced to Julian Huxley, 1927, brother of Aldous. It cites this study, which proves to me that there is hope for the planet in young scientists. I.e., they have a genuine sense of humor. I could make and sell actual hats with an ICCF logo, and then printed sheets of aluminum foil that can be wrapped over the hat. If I need to lower investment, just the sheets could be sold; with hats there is the problem of stocking sizes. However, some hats are adjustable, and I’ve been given such hats by a technical conference as part of my registration package. So it may be practical. ICCF-21, here we come…. Cold Fusion Comes of Age. Coming of Age is associated with an extension of adolescent humor. I could imagine various optional printings. Would laser printers print on foil if held by a carrier? Heh! Fun!
I have added some more pages to the list with annotations. It’s going to take me some time to catch up….. someone is wrong on the internet ….
Eric and Allan are still cracking the whip on LF.
Can’t resist adding my own story/experience with Alan… In posting at LF I have generally tried to stick completely to objective comments, supported by links. Some of those comments clearly did not reflect well on the dottore’s credibility (since he has been shown to have little if any). Alan’s response was to drop a very thinly veiled threat to ‘doxx’ me. What does that say about a moderator’s character when they threaten doxxing because they don’t like what you have to say?
That said, Dewey’s approach to commentary deserved a temporary ban long long ago (should a double standard be applied just because someone has information that others don’t?). Dewey – some friendly advice – I understand your frustration completely, but the way you speak to other people (who may deserve your comments) does not reflect well on you or your friends, nor does it further your goals.
Guest, do you have an email or link to a comment supporting what you claim here about the threat? Email is entitled to privacy protection, ordinarily, but not if it is of the character you describe.
In the real world, “rules” are bent when there are strong reasons. Having Dewey as a participant on LENR Forum was a strong attraction for the place, and it would have been the same if Rossi or a known associate participating. The string of sock puppets, though, tends to negate this for Rossi. It’s deceptive. Dewey is opinionated and has strong feelings, but he’s not deceptive. He readily admitted being nckhawk a year ago. He’s a real person, his deposition is filed in the suit, there is nobody else on that level participating anywhere, except for Rossi himself on JONP. Nevertheless, rules can and should be enforced against anyone and everyone — including moderators –, but “rules” doesn’t necessarily mean banning. Banning is appropriate when the labor of enforcing rules with a user outweighs the value. Defiance of clear rules, neutrally enforced, would properly lead to escalating bans. Wikipedia worked all this out long ago. The only problem with Wikipedia was that high-level process was itself corrupt; in theory, the “community” is in charge, making decisions, but the reality is quite different, due to structural defects present from the beginning, that became impossible to repair.
I do, but the post itself contains partial doxxing, so I’d prefer to not share publicly.
It’s up to you if you decide to share it with me, or not. I’d want to see the full headers if it’s an email. I do respect requests for confidentiality. I would then redact it and obtain your permission before publishing.
Without this, I’m concerned about the claim made about Alan Smith without evidence.
my email address is abd … at … lomaxdesign … dot … com.
Guest – thank you for the advice. I don’t disagree with you.
Having said that – letting off a round or two against all of the malarky
the Planet Rossians and their media support team manage to cook up / pop off on is irresistible at times.
Dewey – it would make sense to post it here rather than on LF. That way, people who are interested in finding out the truth will see it, and those who wish to continue praising Rossi won’t have their blood-pressure dangerously elevated. The information will however filter across to LF. THH has directed people here several times as a way of getting indexed access to the documents as well as dispassionate analysis, so the denizens of LF will likely look here even if they don’t comment. Abd has a way of dissecting any thoughtless comments, and that would be painful to trolls.
It’s a shame that you can’t present the IR survey as evidence. That would have shown absolutely that the heat simply wasn’t there and that the collected data was false.
My sense, from reading Tom Darden’s deposition (http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0207.10_Exhibit_10.pdf ) is that he was prepared to go to any lengths to get a working system, and that this was done from a belief that Ni/H LENR is possible and a hope that Rossi wasn’t all untruth but was based at least on a core of truth. Tom’s previous ventures in recovering land and in trying to improve the world (whilst meantime making a healthy profit) show the direction he is headed and I’d be happy to work with him because of that history. Achieving cheap and pollution-free energy is the obvious problem that needs to be solved since that impacts all the problems we face of limited resources, and it seems Tom is betting a lot of his personal fortune (and reputation) on achieving a solution. It must feel like a slap in the face to not only find that Rossi was lying all along but also that Rossi is suing him.
This case is not short of interest. I’ll look forward to more revelations.
Simon – thank you for your note. Tom and JT extended Rossi so many graces and opportunities – they went well out of their way to try and accommodate that maniac. Tom / friends put up an initial$20M to see if LENR research could be actually realized, characterized, coalesced and moved into an engineering stage. Huge guts and leadership. Everyone was well aware of the risk and fully onboard knowing the reality that a total loss was the most likely outcome but if the ball could be moved then the field then it was going to be worth it. The time and resource sink from having to deal with Rossi has been painful and is sad when one considers what should have been rightfully deployed on the CF mission for the past year (or the past 3. 5 years/$$ for that matter) Rossi has attacked folks who know how to fight back. We are going to see this through to a just end and it is actually looking quite terrible for his side.
On a more petty note, I have the Italian magazine cover image of Rossi in a yellow hard hat and tux from his waste oil to smuggled gold riches days that he is touting as a “book” on his Journal for the Criminally Insane. I don’t want to stain Abd’s turf with that image.
Huge guts and leadership
from T.D would have been
firing or buying out his
friends and then contacting
A.R. and saying we are going
to have a meeting.
And extending the grace period with Rossi may have at the time seemed like a good tactical move, and now with the passage of hindsight (time) it clearly was not.
As far as being strategic move for sure it was not.
As an aside I asked about what happened to ICCF-21? I was told maybe of a spring 18 announcement. But ShaneD provided a sound reason (right or wrong it makes sense to me) To paraphrase [Hosting it in NC before the jury decides could be used against them (IH) in court.]
** Adb if you see this. I was going to exactly quote Shanes comment from LF but was not sure after your Krivit issue. So advise on the use of quotes please. -Thx
Many apply the concept of hindsight neglecting what was possible at the time of a decision, and comparing actual decisions with some kind of ideal outcome, that is, often enough, very incomplete. I look at what IH did and notice that they amplified $20 million to $70 million by their boldness with Rossi. And they are trusted by Woodford, it appears. Woodford — like IH — was disappointed because the Rossi technology crashed and burned, apparently, but that doesn’t mean they were disappointed in IH, and all signs are that they are fully on board the long-term mission. Of course, they could always decide to withdraw that $150 million commitment, but without the Rossi adventure, perhaps that commitment might not have been made. I assume that IH knows what they are doing, and they are not the only show on the road.
We can always come up with reasons for anything. My sense is simply that IH needed to focus on Rossi v. Darden and they were not required to commit more fully than they did, as to ICCF-21, it would be early enough that some other bid could be entertained. I’m hoping to visit North Carolina, I expect to have a daughter living there, not far from IH, by this summer or so. I hope that they host #21.
As to quoting, you may, for purposes of critique and commentary, quote freely here. Krivit was simply an asshole. He has relied on Fair Use for a long time, and still does. The problem is that my service provider has a very strange policy, not following the law, or I’d have confronted him. I may move service providers, but it’s a piece of work. Generally, if someone doesn’t like my hosting something here because of copyright or other legal issue, they can tell me (make a comment on a post to that effect, and it will be quickly seen), and U.S. law creates no hazard for me unless I refuse to take it down. I very much doubt that LF would complain about Fair Use hosting here with attribution, so, if you are going to quote something, always link to it, you will notice that I always do that in my extensive quotations. Krivit quotes entire published documents, intact, with publication formatting…. but if the publisher doesn’t complain, he’s not in danger — unless he is for-profit, and he did go to for-profit organization, I think. That’s his problem, not mine, and I can’t complain on behalf of a publisher.
First thanks, I would not directly ‘quote’ the LF if it caused you issues. Best to ask. I have not figured out this cross pollination with LF but it works for me||| and others that I consider thought leaders.
Rossi to me now is a sideshow. I am glad that I can depend on you and others to follow it down. Surely I comment and often. Haha I am compelled to. This is what separates me from Simon. I once mentioned that he is a polymath. Well I stand by it. Enough said.
Regarding your 3rd party app.
I have found that the app hypothe.is—- has great lag time. Once it takes control it well performance wise it is not great. This is just some feedback. Do I use it? Surely as “you” are pointing to something that you think stands out.
Does it work as slow as a traffic light? No it is like 2 lights.
Anyway I have a threat to you! Do not come to the DC area without contacting me!
Quoting LF has not caused me issues, except for unidentified staff that went ballistic. Got it. I might be going to Florida in a couple of months, you can guess why. If I drive, DC is smack dab in the way. I might also take the bus. In some ways it is easier, and then I could stop in DC, where I could meet Nagel and Kidman and maybe some others. Fun! In fact, what a great idea! I could walk to the bus terminal here, instead of a complicated mess getting to the airport, plus parking, etc. After all, I took the bus to ICCF-18, had my iPhone stolen, — got it back and made money on the deal –, slept in Port Authority in New York, on the floor, and What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger. I now know much better how to prepare for bus travel contingencies. Carry a neck pillow and a blanket! And watch that phone like a hawk! So, it takes an extra day, maybe. It’s less stressful, in fact. Flying to Colorado last October put me in the hospital when I came back. First time in my life…. (Note to self about flying: Get up and walk frequently. They tell you to do that. They don’t tell you you could die if you don’t!)
You say LF is pro-Rossi because they banned you, while at ECW they are saying LF is now pro-IH because they banned a few Rossi-fanboys in a very heated and aggressive discussion.
In the end it looks like LF is very balanced 😉
Between ourselves: You have to admit that you were a little provocative all the time and tried to bring it to the boil, especially the last few days. The return of siffer seemed to be the icing on the cake 😉
Wrong Dogder – I didn’t say any such thing and don’t bring your troll-self over here with the goal of messing with folks. Alan remains clearly pro-Rossi despite all the truth that is slapping him from cheek to cheek. He has proven time and time again that he has no ability, judgement or temperament to moderate. He is incapable and needs to step down or be removed from L.F. moderation. Eric is stepping up to try and get a handle over there but it may be too late. There should have been at least one immediate permaband from yesterday – that was a no brainer.
Another full dose of truth on the way for the silver coyote and his cohorts.
Dewey is often very combative in the way he posts. Personally, I think its fun, as do many. And his posts come with a good deal of content, so for me he would not be a troll. But looking at the matter impartially there is a case for banning him over there as contributing to the heat.
My judgement is you ban as trolls people who trade insults and contribute no content. He is far from that whereas many from Planet Rossi are exactly that.
Alan is an idiot banning Dewey since he comes with an insight into these matters LF will not otherwise get…
IMHO Alan starts from a fixed perspective: that Rossi-style Ni-H LENR works, and the people around Rossi doing this are correct or at least on the side of the angels – and this colors his moderation and his comment on the Rossi-IH stuff.
Thanks THH – I see the “i” word can be appropriately applied in certain quarters. We need to keep things in perspective but Alan’s move is going to prove costly in the coming days and weeks. He is permanent damaged goods and he continues to injure the L.F. brand/value. I have some good stuff to forward folks if anyone with a real verifiable name is interested in posting it on LF. At present, I think I’m done with that venue unless they can figure themselves out.
There are reasonable arguments for warning Dewey and for creating and enforcing clear rules. In this case, though, we have Alan violating the rules himself, certainly creating disruption, and then being judge, jury, and executioner on what he thinks. What I saw was that no matter how outrageous Alan was, the other “team” members were not going to restrain him, and writing for LF became too obviously too risky for this writer. So when I said that I would boycott LF until this matter was addressed, Alan then banned me. Thios is all primitive “I’m the boss” horn-locking. Dewey had been right. “Amateur hour.” The LENR revolution is coming, and LENR Forum could have been important as an element in community process. Instead, it is a device for generating much smoke and little real fire.
Remember, Alan attempted to shut down Rossi v. Darden discussion as not important. Moderators, seeing disruption in this thread — which would properly include anything off-topic — have added to it by commenting on the disruption. Classically, warning a user by a comment in a discussion is ineffective. As well, that a user is warned by someone who clearly has an axe to grind with respect to the user is likely to be ineffective. LF is violating, repeatedly, rules that make community discussions work. To be sure, the structure, the software, is highly limiting. Why does a one-word reply take up as much space as a much longer post? Jed points out that you can block a user and then don’t see the user’s posts, but that is only true if you are reading the thread. The blocked user’s posts show up in Unread Posts. There are far more powerful and efficient ways to allow users to control content they read, and to find what they are interested in. It is almost as if the Forum was designed to create a vastly confused mess of never-resolved discussions, so tedious to read through that something between few and nobody reads it.
No. I confronted behavior that a majority of the community would consider abusive, if it were considered. What I did was far less disruptive than common behavior on LF, but I was pointing out moderation and site administration’s failure to address them. Under those conditions, that I’d be banned would actually be expected from an abusive administration, because staff will commonly protect its own before it protects the community, the users. Very normal. And very damaging to community.
I do not say that LF is pro-Rossi because they banned me. Where did I say that? LF administration is mixed.
It was not “all the time.” It was in response to specific incidents, which were evidenced. Dodger, you have not mentioned all the highly provocative posts — and moderator actions — by Alan Smith. It is obvious that there are others on staff who support Alan, but … I have not seen them, any of the others, taking offensive actions, except for one or two behind the scenes. As to the first of those, the admin apologized. As to the second, highly offensive and essentially an attempt to censor outside discussion, it has not been mentioned on LF. Now, on Wikipedia, I observed this. There were abusive administrators, but they would not directly take offensive actions. They had attack dogs that did it for them, and then they protected those who served them in this way. The structure provided no restraint, and the community was mostly asleep, passive.
Very normal, and it created a Wikipedia that is very good, but ultimately unreliable. It’s been known for a long time how to fix it, but the entrenched factions won’t allow it, because it would reduce their power. LF is a minor example.
Can we start a page on how Alan Smith sees facts / the world? That guy is in so far over his head that he doesn’t know which was is up. I do admire Eric for trying to get a handle on that zoo but I’m afraid the damage is done. The color commentary in the coming weeks is going to be necessary and fascinating – lead the way Abd!
Oh and how about the latest sports figure SP to post from INSIDE one of Rossi’s meetings (AKA the silver coyote):
I was banned on LF because I pointed out that a moderator was deleting material in a biased and harmful way … i.e., Alan … and so Alan banned me. There were easy possible compromises. Rejected, with an admin in despair over the situation behind the scenes. So, Alan is fair game, but … there is also an issue of time. The annotation is easy to do, but it still takes time. So far, nobody else has asked for Author privileges here, which would allow creation of pages like that. (I would mediate any disputes if they arise, as site owner, but would hope to set up community process. Creating community structures is my goal, not flogging my own opinions.
Annotation should be done on static pages, which the discussion threads are, until and unless the admin handling site structure (Barty) changes the post count, which he did before. This then broke all page references to the site, it was an example of how naive LF admin was. That would damage the annotations, which would then appear on a different page. So, dirty trick by deceptive administration: change page counts. Hey, maybe 25 posts per page would be ideal. It’s just a single edit to the site setup. Just like the adding of coldfusioncommunity.net to the sites .htaccess file, that then broke all direct links from coldfusioncommunity posts. Because I found a way around that, this was reversed, but this took an admin action, almost certainly Barty.
That is why another admin was in despair. Alan claimed majority support from staff, but I doubt that Eric Walker approved, nor Alain, and there are other Staff. The biggest problem, though, has to be the Owner. Who stays in the background, but who has the power to add or remove privileges. And, of course, who receives the advertising revenue, milking the labor of his volunteers. I have no idea what that revenue is.
Thanks, Dewey. I’ve thought of creating such a page, for sure. In fact, there is one, I started, but it has not been published. What is particularly relevant has been his behavior as a moderator, combined with his behavior as a user. He does what he sanctions others for doing. The most obvious offense is banning and deleting what ha has personal involvement with. There are moderation procedures that can be used in a mature community that avoid that. Wikipedia has the policies, they would work if the enforcement mechanisms were not so easily corrupted, and mostly that is a result of DGAFism.
Dewey, you may do your own annotation on hypothes.is, and I will link to annotated pages here. You may also send any text to me by email and I assume I’ll post it — or tell you why I’m not. I would assign you author privileges here — and that is open to many, they simply have not asked. Until we have a community process, the buck stops here as to what CFC will allow. LF certainly imploded or exploded yesterday, I wasn’t watching. Life intrudes, eh? I will probably document the sequence of bans.
Eric Walker is doing the best he can, though he could have made a big difference months ago if he’d been willing to risk disapproval from certain others. Alan Smith is being the bully he has been for a long time. In a mature system, if a moderator decides that something is urgent and cannot wait for a neutral mod to act, they can act, but would properly immediately turn the issue over for review. In a mature system, this would be transparent, unless very specific reasons, generally privacy protection, prevents it. As a Wikiversity administrator, I worked on policies for this, but, in the end, the WikiMediaFoundation wikis are highly vulnerable to aggressive personal power. Document abuse by a high-level functionary and see what happens! Even if it is carefully neutral and fully civil.
Alan is, quite simply, like that, he holds grudges and acts on them when he finds an excuse. Dewey, you don’t need to slog through the muck on LENR Forum to make your views known. Annotation allows immediate commentary, without disrupting discussions, there is no excuse to attack the commentator unless it makes it all transparent whose bread is being buttered. When I started to use CFC, it was claimed that this was Planet Lomax, a very lonely place. Of late, there are too many comments for me to keep up with them, too much writing to do, to do all of it, useful work aplenty.