Hi,
On 29-9-2011 20:40, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Mr. Krivt also claims he no longer participates in discussion
groups like the Vort Collective. However, I suspect Mr. Krivit has his
helpers who will report anything of interest to him, such as what
occasionally comes out of the Vort
From MoB:
...
This appears to me definitely as a one-sided news report, which in my
opinion discredits Krivit as an unbiased objective reporter regarding the
Rossi saga.
Or as they say what goes around comes around.
You express one of my concerns.
I refer you to to my previous unsolicited
2011/9/29 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com:
Krivit strikes me as endeavoring to be a very good investigative
reporter.
I think that problem with Krivit is that he has lost the perspective
to the story. Bubble fusion scandal was completely in different
proportions to that
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
And Krivit started vicious ad hominem attacking against Rossi and
Levi. By for what reason?
What is Krivit's evidence? Rossi purposefully showed him a dummy
E-Cat that does fool no one.
If that is true it should certainly make Krivit upset! It
Jouni sez:
...
And it did not cross into Krivit's mind that perhaps,
Rossi had some awkward motivation to present him a
dummy demonstration?
Good grief! You actually wrote that as speculation about Krivit's motivations?
You're obviously not a cynic! ;-)
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
And Krivit started vicious ad hominem attacking against Rossi and
Levi. By for what reason?
Here the definition of ad hominem seems distorted. Criticizing a
paper or posting or experimental approach is not ad hominem. Calling
someone
Steven:
I share most of your thoughts on Krivit as well... I've had a fair amount of
interaction w/SK due to reviewing articles and general debates/discussions with
him, and he has always been open-minded about suggestions, and even made some
corrections or taken advice on difficult
This is beyond the pale.
On Sep 29, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Actually my memory was somewhat clouded by latter blog entries by
Krivit, that were more problematic, arrogant and insulting.
.
I don't know what this is about. I do not read Krivit's blog
regularly. I am sorry to
I wrote: My intentions are not obviously not malicious. To what end
would that serve?
That was a typo. It should have read: My intentions are obviously
not malicious. To what end would that serve?
Corollary to Murphy's law: The probability of a typo is proportional
to its importance.
These remarks provide an excellent pedagogical example!
Your argument below is an ad hominem attack. The statements:you
that you are not able for normal social interaction and you do not
have ability to understand sarcasm or hostile intentions, if they are
hidden behind formally correct
10 matches
Mail list logo
