Re: [Vo]:Apologize?
This is a painful problem with skeptics, who in fact prevent sincere questioner to think straight from evidences. Rossi have a controversial story about Petrol dragon, but nothing definitive except some loose behavior with taxes and environmental regulations. For the US Army TEG projet, there is strange things, but agains nothing definitive. For many previous test, there was many questions, but all was so badly done that it could not be definitive. Krivit, who is a sincere LENR reporter, with a tendency to amplify the pathos and develop conspiracy theories, noticed a very important fact when Rossi refused him to see too many things on his reactor... whether it was IP protection, or stage magic hiding, is again an open question. More seriously conspiracy theories, often unrealistic, hide real problems. I remember from the Defkalion demo that Gamberale later denounced the many conspiracy theories on electric circuits, and the self confidence of skeptics, while there was simpàly missing data. Hopefully Luca completed the file and make the conclusion clear. Before we have good data, skeptics should simply have raised the possibility of a problem, and supporters raise the possibility of a real phenomenon, instead of both being sure of their theory. For Lugano test, there was initial erroneous theories (inverted clamps) against success , until Thomas found the problem of window and total emissivity discrepancy, confirmed by MFMP test. He is still unable to admit the inverted clamp theory was just wrong. For isotopic test there was the stage magic theory, assuming Rossi was a prestidigitator, but it fogged the question. the key problem in the test is simply that what was extracted from the reactor is probably not the same as what was put in. The problem is that many people concluded while not leaving the question open... open on both directions. Concluding too early push contradictors (like me) to radicalize on the opposite. This does not helps me to make my own opinion. 2016-05-23 4:37 GMT+02:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net>: > The following commentary is not an attempt on my part to justify, or > endorse Rossi's recent professional behavior. > > > > While some might suggest we need to apologize to Mr. Krivit I feel no > desire to endorse let alone enable investigative reporting tactics that > repeatedly exploit phrases like "convicted fraudster" or "convicted white > collar criminal" to characterize Rossi's prior business activities. Does > Rossi's prior fraud charges prove his current business actions are just as > bogus? Sure, it's tantalizing to assume that might be the case. I can see > why one might think it is a correct assumption to draw. Unfortunately, > doing so is nothing more than playing the game of guilt-by-association. The > point being: What does playing the guilt-by-association game have to do > with investigative reporting of the current evidence? It strikes me more as > a tactic a prosecutor attorney would attempt to exploit to build a case of > damning evidence, assuming the court doesn't bar him from doing so due to > irrelevance to current circumstances. It's my understanding that Mr. Krivit > wants to be perceived as an objective independent investigator/journalist. > If that is the case, why does his investigative reporting on Rossi > repeatedly include phrases like "convicted of fraud" and " convicted > white-collar criminal " over and over, typically near the beginning of > another damming Rossi article? Doing so, strikes me as more the actions > that a prosecuting attorney would exploit to insinuate to the jury that the > defendant on trial is guilty. But what do such insinuations have to do with > judging the contents of the latest experimental evidence under fire between > Rossi and I.H? It strikes me as something an investigative reporter might > feel inclined to include if he lacked confidence in being able to stand > alone in his ability to deconstruct the alleged veracity of Rossi's current > experimental claims. For that suspicion alone, I feel no inclination to > offer apologies. > > > > It makes me think Mr. Krivit may have chosen the wrong profession to excel > at. I hope he eventually finds his true calling. Everyone deserves to > embark on his true calling. God only knows it's taken me damned near a > life-time to find a few special callings of my own to slave away at until I > die. > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > orionworks.com > > http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks > > http://stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com >
[Vo]:Apologize?
The following commentary is not an attempt on my part to justify, or endorse Rossi's recent professional behavior. While some might suggest we need to apologize to Mr. Krivit I feel no desire to endorse let alone enable investigative reporting tactics that repeatedly exploit phrases like "convicted fraudster" or "convicted white collar criminal" to characterize Rossi's prior business activities. Does Rossi's prior fraud charges prove his current business actions are just as bogus? Sure, it's tantalizing to assume that might be the case. I can see why one might think it is a correct assumption to draw. Unfortunately, doing so is nothing more than playing the game of guilt-by-association. The point being: What does playing the guilt-by-association game have to do with investigative reporting of the current evidence? It strikes me more as a tactic a prosecutor attorney would attempt to exploit to build a case of damning evidence, assuming the court doesn't bar him from doing so due to irrelevance to current circumstances. It's my understanding that Mr. Krivit wants to be perceived as an objective independent investigator/journalist. If that is the case, why does his investigative reporting on Rossi repeatedly include phrases like "convicted of fraud" and " convicted white-collar criminal " over and over, typically near the beginning of another damming Rossi article? Doing so, strikes me as more the actions that a prosecuting attorney would exploit to insinuate to the jury that the defendant on trial is guilty. But what do such insinuations have to do with judging the contents of the latest experimental evidence under fire between Rossi and I.H? It strikes me as something an investigative reporter might feel inclined to include if he lacked confidence in being able to stand alone in his ability to deconstruct the alleged veracity of Rossi's current experimental claims. For that suspicion alone, I feel no inclination to offer apologies. It makes me think Mr. Krivit may have chosen the wrong profession to excel at. I hope he eventually finds his true calling. Everyone deserves to embark on his true calling. God only knows it's taken me damned near a life-time to find a few special callings of my own to slave away at until I die. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson orionworks.com http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks http://stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
[Vo]:Apologize to list members, errorneous PM
Hello, I became aware that I repeatedly sent mails directly to list members. This was done in error. When Im at work I can only use a rather poor HTML online mail program. When I hit Reply on a vortex message then usually the reply is automatically sent to the list. In some cases it happened, that the answer was sent to the poster directly. I dont know why this happens, might be there is an error in the reply-adress? I will try to prevent this. I didnt want to start private communication. If, then this would be explicitely expressed in my mail. If you got a private mail from me without such a notification, it was sent in error, sorry. my apologies and kind regards, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Apologize to list members, errorneous PM
On 2011-10-06 11:59, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I dont know why this happens, might be there is an error in the reply-adress? I will try to prevent this. Make sure that the only e-mail address in the To: header is vortex-l@eskimo.com and that there are no headers other than that (Cc:, Bcc:, Reply-To:, Followup-to:, etc.), unless you specifically want so. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Apologize to list members, errorneous PM
In reply to peter.heck...@arcor.de's message of Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:59:38 +0200 (CEST): Hi, [snip] Hello, I became aware that I repeatedly sent mails directly to list members. This was done in error. When Im at work I can only use a rather poor HTML online mail program. When I hit Reply on a vortex message then usually the reply is automatically sent to the list. In some cases it happened, that the answer was sent to the poster directly. I dont know why this happens, might be there is an error in the reply-adress? I will try to prevent this. This isn't really your fault. It's the fault of a few Vorts who insist on filling in the reply to field in their email clients. When they post to the list, eskimo leaves the reply to field alone, and when you reply to them, the reply to field takes precedence over the from field, so your reply goes to them directly instead of to the list. *Everyone* should leave the reply to field empty. It isn't needed for normal emails as the from field is automatically used for the reply address if reply to is empty. When a list server such as eskimo receives an email with an empty reply to field, it places it's own address in the reply to (overwriting the blank that is already there), so that when you reply to the email from the list, it goes back to the list automatically. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
