At 06:30 PM 8/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Let me summarize:
I will, too.
If your best argument
"Your" is unspecified. Whose best argument?
against this data is the assertion that Lewan and I are incapable
of transcribing numbers correctly,
That's certainly not my argument. Period.
or that Levi and the others did not bother to check the published
report in NyTekNik to be sure the numbers are right, you have lost this debate.
Please stop insulting me with this ridiculous assertion.
What assertion? You did not quote it. I think this must have been
based on my noting the difference between the numbers. There is a
discrepancy, which might have many different origins. That's all.
This actually wasn't important, it was dicta, of minor interest only
and certainly was not my "best argument."
Jed, it's like your defense of Rossi against charges *you implied*
from Krivit showing the plumber's toolbox. Krivit made no claim that
those tools were any kind of suspicious thing. Krivit's just a
reporter, some of the time. Those photos were "of interest," not
because they prove or demonstrate anything about the reality of the
E-cat, except to show there is apparently a real plumber working for
Rossi, which I find, indeed, interesting. Just irrelevant to judging
the claims.
To me, it makes Rossi a *tiny bit* more credible! He's paying a
plumber, I assume. Or maybe the guy is a volunteer. Frankly, I'm glad
to see that Rossi has some help!
Jed, you are now taking every comment on the E-cat, it seems, and
interpreting it as pro or con. And you are attacking everything you
see as con. Here, you took a simple noting of a discrepancy as if it
were a criticism, which it was not. It was just a fact.
You've become attached to an outcome here. That's what's visible. I
highly recommend dropping it. There is a pie flying through the air,
very likely to hit Rossi in the face. I suggest ducking. ASAP.
Stick with what you *know.* Rossi has set up a situation where many
false appearances have been created. He's showing amazing skill at
that. We can all be fooled for a time by such a person. I certainly
was. I really thought this was likely genuine, at least in round
outline (like you!). Yes, there were some obvious problems, but Rossi
blah blah blah. Excuses blah blah blah. Justifications blah blah blah.
When I was cautioning the CMNS community in February or so, as I
recall, it was only against a theoretical possibility, that Rossi
would fail to deliver in October, which could easily happen even if
his work has a solid basis. That was a foolish promise, it's obvious,
but it was not necessary for CMNS researchers to stick their faces
where the pie would hit them, too. All they needed was normal,
rational, ordinary skepticism, to maintain scientific reserve. To
behave like the real scientists that most of them are.
You know, if the general scientific community had stuck to that in
1989 et seq, we might be far ahead. It was pseudoskepticism rampant
that did so much damage. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
It's looking to me like, in some cases at least, I'm going to be
stuck with "I told you so." I hope I'm wrong. Seriously, because the
world needs energy, it's important. But wishes and hopes are neither
horses nor horse-power.
