Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[ROGER ANDERTON]

which is sad, because Galileo's physics led to the idea of point-particle; 
which many people rebel against such an existential crisis in  physics
Introduction to Boscovich talk by Stoiljkovich + existential crisis in physics 
R Anderton ANPA 2016

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Introduction to Boscovich talk by Stoiljkovich + existential crisis in phys...
 Copernician Revolution led to Existential crisis, the fall-out of which we 
still suffer. Boscovich's theory ...  |   |

  |

  |

 
 

On Monday, 3 July 2017, 18:05, Eric Walker  wrote:
 

 My reply accidentally went to Roger's personal email address.
Eric

-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Walker 
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden
To: ROGER ANDERTON 


Hi Roger,
If Galileo directed repeated, charged personal attacks with crass language at 
valued participants on LENR Forum, he might not have lasted long.  I don't know 
what his personality was like, and I suspect he just made claims that people 
didn't want to here [hear].  But if he was pugnacious in the sense of changing 
the conversation from a debate to simple personal attacks, the world would have 
had to benefit from his knowledge and insight through some channel other than 
LENR Forum.
Eric


On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:47 PM, ROGER ANDERTON  
wrote:

 >>We would ideally not attract pugnacious participants
Galileo was pugnacious


On Monday, 3 July 2017, 16:11, Eric Walker  wrote:
 

 Hi Kevin,
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed at 
least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a 
one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you put ME 
on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.


In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such as 
woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass and 
sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent to you.  
Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we seek to 
attract.  We would ideally not attract pugnacious participants such as 
yourself, but there's only so much we can do.

You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I WAS 
PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up. 


Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said you 
were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR Forum), 
you were basically put in the category of participants such as Sifferkoll the 
minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in action on Vortex, 
so your reputation proceeded you.
I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at LENR 
Forum at this point and allow you the last word.

Eric


   




   

Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

My reply accidentally went to Roger's personal email address.

Eric


-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Walker 
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden
To: ROGER ANDERTON 


Hi Roger,

If Galileo directed repeated, charged personal attacks with crass language
at valued participants on LENR Forum, he might not have lasted long.  I
don't know what his personality was like, and I suspect he just made claims
that people didn't want to here [hear].  But if he was pugnacious in the
sense of changing the conversation from a debate to simple personal
attacks, the world would have had to benefit from his knowledge and insight
through some channel other than LENR Forum.

Eric



On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:47 PM, ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> >>We would ideally *not* attract pugnacious participants
>
> Galileo was pugnacious
>
>
>
> On Monday, 3 July 2017, 16:11, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed
> at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a
> one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you
> put ME on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.
>
>
> In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such
> as woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass
> and sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent
> to you.  Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we
> seek to attract.  We would ideally *not* attract pugnacious participants
> such as yourself, but there's only so much we can do.
>
> You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I
> WAS PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up.
>
>
> Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said
> you were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR
> Forum), you were basically put in the category of participants such as
> Sifferkoll the minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in
> action on Vortex, so your reputation proceeded you.
>
> I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at
> LENR Forum at this point and allow you the last word.
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>