Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
Jed, I wrote the response below for the Vortex list, but have decided instead to send it only to you, because it's actually a personal appeal and invitation to you. At 08:58 AM 5/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Lindley is

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
At 02:18 PM 5/7/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, I wrote the response below for the Vortex list, but have decided instead to send it only to you, because it's actually a personal appeal and invitation to you. Oops! Apparently it is not enough to think I'm doing something, I have to act,

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-07 Thread Jed Rothwell
Abd accidentally published some comments here. I will respond to one or two details just to set the record straight: Jed, this boils down to his making a mistake, *at worst.* Sure! Worst is the operative term. It was the worst mistake I have ever seen published in professional literature.

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-07 Thread Terry Blanton
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, I wrote the response below for the Vortex list, but have decided instead to send it only to you, because it's actually a personal appeal and invitation to you. Oopsie! T

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-05 Thread Axil Axil
I believe that the predisposition of many mainstream critics of out-of-the-box thinkers as abnormal and aberrant is deeply rooted in human nature. Such intolerance is an adaptive evolutionary trait fostered by natural selection to enhance the survival of the race. The human race is the only

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-04 Thread Jed Rothwell
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Lindley is the second dumbest person associated with cold fusion. The late Nate Hoffman was the stupidest, in my opinion. Yeah, Jed, we discussed the late Nate when we first started corresponding. I very much disagree with you about Mr.

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-04 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
That was a juicy read, Jed. FWIW, I know someone who's employed at the National Science Foundation. He's an old Science Fiction fan/friend we've known for decades. He reviews funding grant proposals for promising new science projects. It's a position that wields a lot of responsibility and power.

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-04 Thread Jed Rothwell
Regarding Abd's comment that Hoffman . . . made some mistakes, no question about that, but there is nobody on the planet who has not done that. There are forgivable mistakes, and there are huge mistakes that no one should make. Suppose Hoffman had written a throwaway sentence or footnote in his

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-04 Thread Jed Rothwell
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Based on conversations I've had with him over the years, not in a million trillion gillion years would I EVER expect him to, on his own reconnaissance, give a single proposal related to a CF project the light of the day. Such

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-03 Thread Jed Rothwell
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Call me a moron, but without more context it is not obvious to me that this qualifies as an idiotic rejection letter. Here is a message about that letter that I posted in 2006. *Famous letter from Lindley* During the course of a discussion elsewhere,

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-03 Thread Jed Rothwell
Pam Boss pointed out the the choice of words in this letter is very insulting and unprofessional. Even if your contrived attempt... I am so used to that tone I hardly noticed. Lindley is famous for calling for unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation to destroy cold fusion.

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-03 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
At 12:40 PM 5/3/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Pam Boss pointed out the the choice of words in this letter is very insulting and unprofessional. Even if your contrived attempt... I am so used to that tone I hardly noticed. Lindley is famous for calling for unrestrained mockery, even a little

[Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-02 Thread Jed Rothwell
I have revised this paper again to clean up problems with the Acrobat program image compression: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanthermalbeh.pdf I went ahead and retyped 14 pages at the end. I mentioned the tale of woe rejection in this paper, starting on p. 239. If you wish learn how

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-02 Thread Terry Blanton
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The most idiotic rejection letter I have ever seen is here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/Lindley.jpg Ceratinly (sic) is! Dr. Lindley needs spell check! Ass. Editor my ass. T

Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper

2012-05-02 Thread Harry Veeder
Call me a moron, but without more context it is not obvious to me that this qualifies as an idiotic rejection letter. Harry On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The most idiotic