Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Rob Dingemans]

Hi,

On 5-6-2013 1:49, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
I'm not arguing for banning Joshua Cude.  I'm saying he should be 
given a timeout, to return in one day (if he wishes) but then he has 
an assigned thread that he will be expected to babysit.  The thread 
would be something like "Joshua Cude Returns".  Anyone can log onto 
that thread and point out that Joshua is evading them on some other 
thread, or was proven conclusively wrong, or has been engaging in 
sneering, or any other rule 2 violation.  Then Bill only has 1 place 
to look.


I think Bill solved that in a similar very decent way by moving him to 
VortexB.


Kind regards,

Rob

RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Mr. Murray:

 

...

 

> I'm glad Joshua Cude is married and has to balance a life against

> his brisk practice to pinpointing and summarizing evidence that

> cold fusion claims are erroneous

 

Whoa! You state "Joshua" is married? Have you been carrying on a private
conversation with him? Did "Joshua" tell you his marital status, or is this
common knowledge? God knows, I've stopped reading "Cude's" posts, so I could
have missed something.

 

...

 

> ...I have experience with psychokinesis many time via the ancient method

> of throwing 3 pennies 6 times to get amazing advice from the I Ching - I

> understand the many sensible skeptical critiques of this claim -- so I

> suspect cold fusion is another case of appearances shifting within

> awareness due to faith and desire -- we live and move and have our

> being within an inexplicable hyperinfinity...

 

Have you discussed such matters with "Joshua"?

 

"Joshua" does not give me the impression he would be terribly sympathetic to
the funding of and scientific investigation of psychokinesis, I Ching, or
the inexplicable being-ness of "hyperinfinity".

 

But please elucidate me. Tell me if I might be mistaken.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Vorl sez:

 

...

 

> Others on this list post far more often than Cude,

> but you have nothing to say about them; it seems to

> me you just want to shut Cude up because you do not

> like what he says.

 

You're absolutely correct that I don't like what Mr. "Cude", or whomever
he/she really is, continues to say on the controversial CF/LENR issue. You
also have every right to post an implication that my recent queries reveal,
in your opinion, the actions of a hypocrite. However, I'll point out that
you have cherry picked through my original inquiries in order to craft such
a conclusion. I asked for the opinions of others, on what they thought about
"Cude's" incessant posting behavior. I made it a point to state that if I
saw reason to believe I was in error in my current assessment of "Cude", I
would drop the matter. I posted my inquiry because I was curious about what
the general consensus might be. The point being: it would be stupid to ban
anyone, including "Cude" from a forum like this one just because someone
(like me in this case) doesn't like what someone else has to say. You don't
seem to understand that my original inquiry had little to do about me or my
own personal frustration with the "Cude" persona since all I have to do is
filter him out, and I have actually done so. Meanwhile, I wanted to know
what others thought about "Cude", and why. Indeed, I learned there are
varying opinions. 

 

Since I seemed to have been, ever so briefly, in your cross hairs, this
"hypocrite" curiously now feels an even stronger desire to express few more
opinions I've drawn on the "Joshua Cude" affair. Why leave the horrid fate
of my virtual reputation in the hands of armchair critics:

 

It's been my experience that there is little I can lean from individuals who
(1) hide behind pseudonyms in order to relentlessly pursue their personal
anti-CF/LENR agendas and (2) appear to have never done any actual hard
science or research of their own the CF/LENR matter.

 

* * * *

 

You give me the impression that you must read many of "Cude's" posts.
Possibly all of them? If so, you strike me as someone who must have a lot of
free time on your hands.

 

Bon Appetite!

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Jed sez:

>> But at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting
>> behavior considered a nuisance and hindrance to on-going
>> Vortex discussions?

> It is not a problem. Just filter the messages out.
> Frankly, I do not see why you raise the issue.


As previously stated I already started filtering "Cude" out. 

Problem solved!

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Kevin O'Malley]

I'm not arguing for banning Joshua Cude.  I'm saying he should be given a
timeout, to return in one day (if he wishes) but then he has an assigned
thread that he will be expected to babysit.  The thread would be something
like "Joshua Cude Returns".  Anyone can log onto that thread and point out
that Joshua is evading them on some other thread, or was proven
conclusively wrong, or has been engaging in sneering, or any other rule 2
violation.  Then Bill only has 1 place to look.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
>>
>>The Wikipedia article was nonsense from start to finish, when I last
>>> checked it a few years ago.
>>>
>> ***And by  doing nothing about dishonest debunkers, Vortex will become
>> the same.
>>
>
> I do not see the similarity. At Wikipedia, when they disagree with you
> they erase your remarks. They also ban you. I think banning people is a bad
> idea, as I said. But it is up to Bill.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4 - here here

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:24 PM, David L Babcock  wrote:
> What he said.  I whacked, unread, those forty odd, and here I am reading and
> deleting, one-by-one, forty or so responses.  Enough of this.

JC is considerate to post all his responses at one time making them
easier to scroll through.  :)

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Vorl Bek]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:48:10 -0400
Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> >
> 
> You are right! You did not say that. Jouni Valkonen did. I somehow got the
> messages mixed up. My apologies.

No problem.

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
>   The Wikipedia article was nonsense from start to finish, when I last
>> checked it a few years ago.
>>
> ***And by  doing nothing about dishonest debunkers, Vortex will become the
> same.
>

I do not see the similarity. At Wikipedia, when they disagree with you they
erase your remarks. They also ban you. I think banning people is a bad
idea, as I said. But it is up to Bill.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Jed Rothwell]

Vorl Bek  wrote:


> > So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi with
> > very little efforts, his involvement is more than justified. . . ."
> >
>
> Did you mean that, or not? Do you think Levi is conspiring to defraud
> > people, or not?
>
> Again, I did not say that.
>

You are right! You did not say that. Jouni Valkonen did. I somehow got the
messages mixed up. My apologies.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Vorl Bek]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:15:23 -0400
Jed Rothwell  wrote:


> Please stop the nonsense. You said that right here:
> 
> "That is true. The risk for Levi is negligible and he can always claim
> ignorance. Levi has very steady job at university and his pay roll is
> determined solely by his Ph.D level education and his work experience
> measured in years. If there are any deviations, Levi can just ask the Union
> lawyer to clear things up. . . .
> 
> So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi with
> very little efforts, his involvement is more than justified. . . ."
> 
> Did you mean that, or not? Do you think Levi is conspiring to defraud
> people, or not?

Again, I did not say that.

In fact, as someone for whom English is his first language I would
not be likely to write things like: 'Levi has very steady job',
'pay roll', 'Levi is making few dozens', 'with very little
efforts'.

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Jed Rothwell]

I meant to say: EPRI is the only major organization that knows anything
about McKubre's work and they also said it is real.

They do not fund the research because of academic and corporate politics.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Jed Rothwell]

Vorl Bek  wrote:


> > No, as I said, they know nothing about this.
>
> I doubt GE got to where it is without an efficient intelligence
> service that keeps them up-to-date on anything that could
> increase, or threaten, their bottom line.
>

I have been in contact with people at GE. A few low level people know about
cold fusion. Higher level people are willfully ignorant.

Large corporations often make mistakes. That is why the Pennsylvania
Railroad and General Motors went bankrupt, IBM almost went bankrupt in the
1980s, and DEC, the second largest computer company, went out of business
in the 1980s.



> They probably know more about Rossi and his gadgets than you do,
> and they probably are not impressed.
>

No, they know nothing. Elforsk is the only major industrial organization
that knows anything about Rossi. They stated unequivocally that they
believe the effect is real. Every is the only major organization that knows
anything about McKubre's work and they also said it is real.




> > YOU said that! You said you think Levi sold out for a few thousand euros
> . . .
>

> No, I did not say that; you must be confusing me with Vrel Bok.
>

Please stop the nonsense. You said that right here:

"That is true. The risk for Levi is negligible and he can always claim
ignorance. Levi has very steady job at university and his pay roll is
determined solely by his Ph.D level education and his work experience
measured in years. If there are any deviations, Levi can just ask the Union
lawyer to clear things up. . . .

So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi with
very little efforts, his involvement is more than justified. . . ."

Did you mean that, or not? Do you think Levi is conspiring to defraud
people, or not?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>   The Wikipedia article was nonsense from start to finish, when I last
> checked it a few years ago.
>
***And by  doing nothing about dishonest debunkers, Vortex will become the
same.


>
>
>> So... some Vorts want to see him ousted.  You're already ignoring him, so
>> what's the big deal if he gets ousted?
>>
>
> I don't like ousting people. That's all there is to it.
>
***Then maybe if you spent more time trying to counter the facetious and
incredibly dishonest arguments, you would 'feel' different about it.  It
seems to me it's the people who are dealing with Joshua who have had it
with him.  Perhaps you can plead the case with Bill for just a temporary
timeout in the hopes this will breathe life into Joshua's sensibilities.  I
wouldn't mind a temporary timeout, with the condition that he has to answer
every argument on some Joshua Cude Return thread.  Then Bill has only one
place to look to see if the guy is being disingenuous.

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Alan Fletcher]

I stopped reading his 40 posts at about the #10 mark, and skipped responses to 
them too.

I don't think I missed anything significant.

I DID think that his poolboy/taxi-driver comment was very funny. There MAY be a 
human being under all the robo posts after all.

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Vorl Bek]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:46:16 -0400
Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Vorl Bek  wrote:
> 
> >
> > Of course it does. Do you think GE will be beating down Rossi's
> > doors because of this one test?
> >
> 
> No, as I said, they know nothing about this.

I doubt GE got to where it is without an efficient intelligence
service that keeps them up-to-date on anything that could
increase, or threaten, their bottom line.

They probably know more about Rossi and his gadgets than you do,
and they probably are not impressed.


> YOU said that! You said you think Levi sold out for a few thousand euros,
> but he has plausible deniability so he is not worried. You said that is the
> current hypothesis. 

No, I did not say that; you must be confusing me with Vrel Bok.

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Jed Rothwell]

Vorl Bek  wrote:

>
> Of course it does. Do you think GE will be beating down Rossi's
> doors because of this one test?
>

No, as I said, they know nothing about this.

Again let me urge you to look at history. Look after Marshall proved that
Helicobacter pylor people ignored him, ridiculed him and attacked him,
instead of looking at the evidence. This is human nature. You cannot judge
the reality of cold fusion by listing people and organizations who reject
the findings, because they refuse to look.

Ignorant people have no right to any opinion. Willfully ignorant people are
contemptible. Deal with that fact. You can cite GE or the DoE all you like.
You can cite Nature magazine, Obama, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, every
professor at MIT, Harvard, Yale and Georgia Tech., every engineer in every
Fortune 500 company, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It makes no difference
who you are talking about. It makes no difference how smart, or famous or
wealthy they are. If they have not read the literature *they know
nothing*and their
*opinion has zero value,* and must be ignored. People cannot know facts or
do science by ESP.


I think it is likely the test will be worthless - probably faked
> in some way by Rossi - because Rossi has the reputation of being a
> liar . . .


This is not about Rossi. It is Levi at al. Rossi has no magical ability to
make watt meters work wrong. You yourself said that no problem has been
found.



> , and because LENR, if it were real, would have more going for
> it than 23 years of anecdotes and laboratory curiosities.
>

Why would it have more going for it? Electric incandescent lights went for
25 years with no progress after they were discovered in the 1850s. High
temperature superconductors are still mainly laboratory curiosities.

More to the point, how can you expect researchers to make progress when
their funding is cut and they are fired? This happened to Mizuno, Miles and
Boss and most others. There is tremendous opposition to this research
because of academic politics. Robert Park and other go around destroying
people's reputations and firing them for even talking about it! People
cannot conduct experiments without funding and academic freedom.



> That seems pretty evenhanded to me.
>

No, you are ignoring history and the fact that cold fusion suffers from
rabid opposition and suppression. If you have any doubt about that, read
the Scientific American, or New Scientist, or ask Robert Park. He will tell
you why he goes around pulling strings to have scientists fired. He is not
shy about his views. He will tell you that cold fusion researchers are all
lunatics, frauds and criminals, and they should be fired. He will also tell
you he has read nothing, so he joins the long list of nutcases who think
they can do science by ESP, and whose opinion must be ignored.



> You are confusing me with somebody else; I have no opinion of Levi
> one way or the other.
>

YOU said that! You said you think Levi sold out for a few thousand euros,
but he has plausible deniability so he is not worried. You said that is the
current hypothesis. Were you only reporting that? Do you not believe it
yourself?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Vorl Bek]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:29:27 -0400
Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  The fact that these measurements have enormous
> implications has no bearing on...how believable they are.

Of course it does. Do you think GE will be beating down Rossi's
doors because of this one test?

> 
> 
> 
> > ; but
> > there is a lot more at stake with LENR, so I, and anybody with his
> > head screwed on right, will want to see more tests, and more
> > independent ones than this one, before we are willing to accept
> > the results.
> >
> 
> If you are
> evenhanded as you say, I think you would now say that you lean toward
> accepting them or at least you are neutral.

I think it is likely the test will be worthless - probably faked
in some way by Rossi - because Rossi has the reputation of being a
liar, and because LENR, if it were real, would have more going for
it than 23 years of anecdotes and laboratory curiosities. 

That seems pretty evenhanded to me.

> You have only suggested that Levi is
> corrupt and that he is willing to destroy his career in return for a few
> thousand euros. If you believe this you are poor judge of human behavior.

You are confusing me with somebody else; I have no opinion of Levi
one way or the other.


> 
> People have now used industry-standard power company techniques to confirm
> Rossi's claims. It is case closed. There is nothing more to discuss.

Then GE must be begging Rossi to accept millions from them just to
have a little business chat, because if the test has truly
confirmed Rossi's claims, then GE, with the engineering brainpower
it has, must have recognized it as well as you have.


> If you insist on evaluating not only the technical issues also with
> reference to the reputations of the researchers...

Again, you are confusing me with somebody else: I know little and
have said nothing about the reputations of the researchers.

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Jed Rothwell]

Vorl Bek  wrote:

As I said the other day, if this test was of competing coffee
> makers, and they chose brand A as the best one, I would probably
> accept their recommendation rather than demanding more tests . . .


Measuring the difference between 300 Watts and 900 Watts is much easier
than evaluating coffeemakers. The list of features that you want to check
in a coffeemaker is long, and you have to evaluate the machine over months
of use, to see how it holds up. This is a much simpler problem. These
people are experts. The fact that these measurements have enormous
implications has no bearing on how easy or difficult the measurements are,
or how believable they are.



> ; but
> there is a lot more at stake with LENR, so I, and anybody with his
> head screwed on right, will want to see more tests, and more
> independent ones than this one, before we are willing to accept
> the results.
>

You not only reject the results, you reject them with prejudice and you say
various unreasonable things about the researchers and about the people
here. It seems to me you are biased against this research. If you are
evenhanded as you say, I think you would now say that you lean toward
accepting them or at least you are neutral. You have not given us any
technical reason to doubt the results. You have only suggested that Levi is
corrupt and that he is willing to destroy his career in return for a few
thousand euros. If you believe this you are poor judge of human behavior.



> I don't have the impression that anybody has been able to shoot
> this test down . . .


Exactly. So you should at least be neutral.



> but has merely pointed to the ways it might have
> been faked, which is exactly what anybody should do when the
> stakes are this high.
>

Calorimetry works the same why whether the stakes are high or low.The
Stefan-Boltzmann law works equally well with a high school textbook problem
or a problem bearing on the most important technology in history, and the
survival of the human race and the solution to global warming. The only
thing you need to consider is the validity of the instruments and
techniques.

Suppose a group of astronomers were to measure the path of an asteroid and
determined that it will soon strike the earth and wipe out the human race.
You would not reject their mathematics because the stakes are high. The
fact that the conclusion is frighting and will cause world-wide pandemonium
has absolutely no bearing on the physics and mathematics of celestial
mechanics. It only means we should double-check the calculations. Once that
is done to the usual standards of astronomy, it is case closed.

People have now used industry-standard power company techniques to confirm
Rossi's claims. It is case closed. There is nothing more to discuss. The
implications have no bearing on the performance of a watt meter.

If you insist on evaluating not only the technical issues also with
reference to the reputations of the researchers, I suggest you take a close
look at the assumptions you are making about human nature. A professor
making well over €100,000 a year is not going to destroy his reputation and
lose all of his friends and his job for a few thousand euros. Someone like
Rossi is not going to cash in all of his money and spent years working 12
hours a day making dozens of prototypes just to produce one fake
reactor. There is no doubt he cashed in. That is a matter of public record.
People have seen the reactors. The behavior you ascribe to these people is
completely irrational and pointless, and there is not a shred of evidence
for it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4 - here here

[David L Babcock]

What he said.  I whacked, unread, those forty odd, and here I am reading 
and deleting, one-by-one, forty or so responses.  Enough of this.


Ol' Bab


On 6/4/2013 12:15 PM, Robert Ellefson wrote:


> ... at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior considered

> a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions? Now, if Cude is

> genuinely making a good contribution I'll have nothing more to say on

> this matter. But it would be interesting to hear a consensus on how much

> of a genuine contribution Cude is allegedly making - from other Vort members.

Now that I am subscribed to the list, I have the ability to filter people

such as Cude directly.  However, there is no reasonable means of filtering

the large volume of useless responses to his postings.  So, as when I read

the vortex web archives only, I am left to scan for names I recognize 
that I


suspect may have something to contribute through the noise.  This is 
tedious


and fundamentally error-prone.  The result is that I typically delete 
en masse


the majority of related discussions.  I don't

Because I quickly elected to simply ignore pseudo-skeptics such as Cude,

I cannot make specific claims as to the contents of his posts, only 
that I do


not care to read them.  However, I can claim that his posts are in 
fact quite


disruptive to the flow of discussion and hence to the purpose of this 
list.


If I were moderating this list, I would not tolerate it.

-Robert

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:


> ***When lurkers come on over to Vortex, they might read one thread but the
> vast majority don't read all the threads.  On one thread I proved that
> Joshua Cude was off by more than 4500 orders of magnitude.  He goes
> silent.  Then on another thread he posts the same mathematically disproven
> argument as if he had been right all along.  If such an assertion isn't
> countered, lurkers will think he has a valid point.
>

I wouldn't worry about that. There are a million places on the Internet
people can go to find nonsense about cold fusion. Having some of it spill
over here will not hurt. The Wikipedia article was nonsense from start to
finish, when I last checked it a few years ago. I believe Wikipedia is the
most popular destination on the Internet.

Anything in the mass media will be nonsense, especially at the Scientific
American.



> So... some Vorts want to see him ousted.  You're already ignoring him, so
> what's the big deal if he gets ousted?
>

I don't like ousting people. That's all there is to it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Jed Rothwell]

Vorl Bek  wrote:


> > When it comes to LENR, there is overwhelming evidence
>
> Then why haven't MIT and GE noticed the overwhelming evidence and
> taken out patents so they can add a trillion or so to their bottom
> lines?
>

Because they are unaware of the results. They  have not read the
literature. At least, the people I have talked to at these places have not
read it.

History is full of similar questions. Why did doctors ignore Semmelweis?
Why did they ignore the evidence that Helicobacter pylor cause stomach
ulcers. Why did the millionaires in San Francisco ignore the opportunity to
build the transcontinental railroad, given that that turned out to be the
most lucrative venture in history? Why didn't DEC and Data General respond
to the personal computer instead of going out of business? IBM invented the
PC yet they almost went out of business in the late 1980s because they
could not keep up with changes in the industry.

It is human nature. Things like this happen all the time in every country.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>>
> If you do not like to read this sort of thing just block his messages.
> What is the big deal?
>
***When lurkers come on over to Vortex, they might read one thread but the
vast majority don't read all the threads.  On one thread I proved that
Joshua Cude was off by more than 4500 orders of magnitude.  He goes
silent.  Then on another thread he posts the same mathematically disproven
argument as if he had been right all along.  If such an assertion isn't
countered, lurkers will think he has a valid point.  Someone like Cude is
probably doing that same sort of thing across multiple issues and multiple
threads.  You yourself say that you tune him out, so his damage will be
done by such an approach.  Small-s skepticism is healthy. Large-S
skepticism and debunking are tedious, tiresome, less valuable, and probably
dissipative -- So Bill says they are not welcome.  Large-S skepticism
& debunking with dishonesty thrown in, plus some measure of bullshit, and
the guy has crossed the line in my book.

So... some Vorts want to see him ousted.  You're already ignoring him, so
what's the big deal if he gets ousted?

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Edmund Storms]

I agree, the contribution by Cude has long since lost its value. His  
issues have been discussed and answered several times. He is never  
going to accept the basic claims, so why bother.  Nevertheless, his  
response is answered and the the answer creates a response, with no  
end in sight. Enough already!!.


Ed Storms
On Jun 4, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Robert Ellefson wrote:

> ... at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior  
considered
> a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions? Now, if  
Cude is
> genuinely making a good contribution I’ll have nothing more to say  
on
> this matter. But it would be interesting to hear a consensus on  
how much
> of a genuine contribution Cude is allegedly making - from other  
Vort members.


Now that I am subscribed to the list, I have the ability to filter  
people
such as Cude directly.  However, there is no reasonable means of  
filtering
the large volume of useless responses to his postings.  So, as when  
I read
the vortex web archives only, I am left to scan for names I  
recognize that I
suspect may have something to contribute through the noise.  This is  
tedious
and fundamentally error-prone.  The result is that I typically  
delete en masse

the majority of related discussions.  I don't

Because I quickly elected to simply ignore pseudo-skeptics such as  
Cude,
I cannot make specific claims as to the contents of his posts, only  
that I do
not care to read them.  However, I can claim that his posts are in  
fact quite
disruptive to the flow of discussion and hence to the purpose of  
this list.

If I were moderating this list, I would not tolerate it.

-Robert

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Vorl Bek]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:28:12 -0700
"MarkI-ZeroPoint"  wrote:

> Vorl:
> You haven't a clue either...
> 
> When it comes to LENR, there is overwhelming evidence

Then why haven't MIT and GE noticed the overwhelming evidence and 
taken out patents so they can add a trillion or so to their bottom
lines?


> 
> So we can either sit here and bad-mouth Rossi, and think of all manner of
> ways that it could be a scam (which serves no useful purpose other than
> self-gratification)

As I said the other day, if this test was of competing coffee
makers, and they chose brand A as the best one, I would probably
accept their recommendation rather than demanding more tests; but
there is a lot more at stake with LENR, so I, and anybody with his
head screwed on right, will want to see more tests, and more
independent ones than this one, before we are willing to accept
the results.

I don't have the impression that anybody has been able to shoot
this test down, but has merely pointed to the ways it might have
been faked, which is exactly what anybody should do when the
stakes are this high.

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Jed Rothwell]

MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:


> you admit that you haven’t read most of his postings so you haven’t a
> clue.  He is a liar.  His goal is to debunk.  That should be obvious.
>


> On 5/31:
>
> “Man, this place is crawling with ignoramuses.”
>
> ** **
>
> on 6/1:
>
> “It's funny how the most vocal advocates for cold fusion shouting that
> skeptics are not scientific mostly . .  .
>

I do not dispute this is obnoxious, but I doubt he is lying. I suppose he
sincerely thinks this place is crawling with ignoramuses and we are not
scientific. Along the same lines, I expect that Robert Park sincerely
believes we are lunatics and criminals.

If you do not like to read this sort of thing just block his messages. What
is the big deal?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Rich Murray]

Hello folks,

I'm scanning just a little of the cold fusion discussion the last two weeks
-- I'm glad Joshua Cude is married and has to balance a life against his
brisk practice to pinpointing and summarizing evidence that cold fusion
claims are erroneous -- I believe him when he says, like me, he would love
to see effective replicable proof for any anomaly in cold fusion research
-- elusive now for 24 years, since 1989 -- I have experience with
psychokinesis many time via the ancient method of throwing 3 pennies 6
times to get amazing advice from the I Ching -- I understand the many
sensible skeptical critiques of this claim -- so I suspect cold fusion is
another case of appearances shifting within awareness due to faith and
desire -- we live and move and have our being within an inexplicable
hyperinfinity...

within the fellowship of service,  Rich Murray


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:28 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Vorl:
> You haven't a clue either...
>
> When it comes to LENR, there is overwhelming evidence, and most of the
> people on this forum who 'appear' as TBs, have read the literature, so to
> call them TBs is in error; they are basing their decision on having read
> the
> evidence themselves.  To someone who hasn't read it, or only skimmed it,
> I'm
> sure we look like TBs.  Like Dr. Rob Duncan said at the end of the
> 60-Minutes story on CF, "Read the publications, talk to the [CF]
> scientists,
> visit their labs... DON'T LET OTHERS DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU."  Many here
> have... have you?
>
> When it comes to Rossi, I see plenty of rational criticism and concern as
> well in most regular contributors on this forum; I think we all have some
> level of concern and are not 100% convinced.  That is not the definition of
> a TB.  If Rossi was the lone claimant of excess heat and other anomalous
> observations, then perhaps TB would be appropriate.  But that is not that
> case.
>
> So we can either sit here and bad-mouth Rossi, and think of all manner of
> ways that it could be a scam (which serves no useful purpose other than
> self-gratification), OR, we can assume he's onto something, which due to
> much evidence outside of Rossi is reasonable, and try to help progress by
> discussing reasonable concerns and possible mechanisms. There are some
> experimentalists on the forum and perhaps it'll help their efforts; which
> is
> the more honorable use of our time?  It should be obvious...
>
> At least this forum has a level of respect for the individual and those who
> might be onto some discovery that could benefit all, and the planet.  Cude
> has no respect for the people on this forum, and probably in general... his
> arrogance is so blatant, even you should be able to see it.
>
> -Mark
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 6:23 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
>
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:35:47 -0500
> "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Beaty,
> >
> >
> >
> > When I opened up my mail box this morning I was flooded with over 40
> > posted messages from Joshua Cude. And it's only 7:10 AM in the
> > morning. I know of no one within the Vort Collective besides Cude that
> > has displayed this amount of excessive and obsessive posting behavior.
> > How many more Cude posts can we expect, today alone?
>
> Cude is one sane person in a nest of True Believers. He has every right to
> point out the nonsense the TBs are spouting.
>
> Others on this list post far more often than Cude, but you have nothing to
> say about them; it seems to me you just want to shut Cude up because you do
> not like what he says.
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Dave:

 

Your interaction with Cude on the DC power issue has been most illuminating in 
two ways:

 

1- since Cude has admitted that the estimate of output power was probably 
reasonable, that only leaves in question the input power.  If this forum can 
help to eliminate possible, and REASONABLE, ways that input power could be 
faked, then it is well worth it!

 

2- by sticking to a single issue, and backing it up by irrefutable evidence 
generated not by you, a human, but by a well-known and proven software 
application (Spice), and asking JC to prove you wrong, he has shown himself to 
be the coward that he is.  When he sees himself getting backed into a corner, 
he tries to cloud the issue or introduce other issues to deflect the reader.  
Good thing you were able to stay on point and not let him squirm out of it…

 

So while I agree most of the forum’s interaction with JC is pretty much 
useless, your interaction has been quite illuminating and should continue… that 
is, *IF* he has the balls, and human decency, to take on the challenge and try 
to prove you wrong…

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

 

Robert,

 

Please forgive me for responding to Cude and perhaps allowing his non sense to 
escape the filter.  I will restrict that situation from this point forth.  I 
feel badly for how I have contributed to this mess, but he was directly 
attacking me and I hated to just stand by and let his inputs escape rebuttal.

 

My responses to Cude are hereby reduced to near zero since he offers little to 
the discussions.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Robert Ellefson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:17 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

> ... at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior considered

> a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions? Now, if Cude is 

> genuinely making a good contribution I’ll have nothing more to say on 

> this matter. But it would be interesting to hear a consensus on how much 

> of a genuine contribution Cude is allegedly making - from other Vort members. 

 

Now that I am subscribed to the list, I have the ability to filter people 

such as Cude directly.  However, there is no reasonable means of filtering

the large volume of useless responses to his postings.  So, as when I read

the vortex web archives only, I am left to scan for names I recognize that I 

suspect may have something to contribute through the noise.  This is tedious

and fundamentally error-prone.  The result is that I typically delete en masse

the majority of related discussions.  I don't 

 

Because I quickly elected to simply ignore pseudo-skeptics such as Cude, 

I cannot make specific claims as to the contents of his posts, only that I do 

not care to read them.  However, I can claim that his posts are in fact quite

disruptive to the flow of discussion and hence to the purpose of this list.

If I were moderating this list, I would not tolerate it.

 

-Robert

RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Vorl:
You haven't a clue either...

When it comes to LENR, there is overwhelming evidence, and most of the
people on this forum who 'appear' as TBs, have read the literature, so to
call them TBs is in error; they are basing their decision on having read the
evidence themselves.  To someone who hasn't read it, or only skimmed it, I'm
sure we look like TBs.  Like Dr. Rob Duncan said at the end of the
60-Minutes story on CF, "Read the publications, talk to the [CF] scientists,
visit their labs... DON'T LET OTHERS DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU."  Many here
have... have you?

When it comes to Rossi, I see plenty of rational criticism and concern as
well in most regular contributors on this forum; I think we all have some
level of concern and are not 100% convinced.  That is not the definition of
a TB.  If Rossi was the lone claimant of excess heat and other anomalous
observations, then perhaps TB would be appropriate.  But that is not that
case.

So we can either sit here and bad-mouth Rossi, and think of all manner of
ways that it could be a scam (which serves no useful purpose other than
self-gratification), OR, we can assume he's onto something, which due to
much evidence outside of Rossi is reasonable, and try to help progress by
discussing reasonable concerns and possible mechanisms. There are some
experimentalists on the forum and perhaps it'll help their efforts; which is
the more honorable use of our time?  It should be obvious...

At least this forum has a level of respect for the individual and those who
might be onto some discovery that could benefit all, and the planet.  Cude
has no respect for the people on this forum, and probably in general... his
arrogance is so blatant, even you should be able to see it.

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 6:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:35:47 -0500
"OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
wrote:

> Mr. Beaty,
> 
>  
> 
> When I opened up my mail box this morning I was flooded with over 40 
> posted messages from Joshua Cude. And it's only 7:10 AM in the 
> morning. I know of no one within the Vort Collective besides Cude that 
> has displayed this amount of excessive and obsessive posting behavior. 
> How many more Cude posts can we expect, today alone?

Cude is one sane person in a nest of True Believers. He has every right to
point out the nonsense the TBs are spouting.

Others on this list post far more often than Cude, but you have nothing to
say about them; it seems to me you just want to shut Cude up because you do
not like what he says.

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[David Roberson]

Robert,

Please forgive me for responding to Cude and perhaps allowing his non sense to 
escape the filter.  I will restrict that situation from this point forth.  I 
feel badly for how I have contributed to this mess, but he was directly 
attacking me and I hated to just stand by and let his inputs escape rebuttal.

My responses to Cude are hereby reduced to near zero since he offers little to 
the discussions.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Robert Ellefson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:17 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4



> ... at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior considered
> a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions? Now, if Cude is 
> genuinely making a good contribution I’ll have nothing more to say on 
> this matter. But it would be interesting to hear a consensus on how much 
> of a genuine contribution Cude is allegedly making - from other Vort members. 
 
Now that I am subscribed to the list, I have the ability to filter people 
such as Cude directly.  However, there is no reasonable means of filtering
the large volume of useless responses to his postings.  So, as when I read
the vortex web archives only, I am left to scan for names I recognize that I 
suspect may have something to contribute through the noise.  This is tedious
and fundamentally error-prone.  The result is that I typically delete en masse
the majority of related discussions.  I don't 
 
Because I quickly elected to simply ignore pseudo-skeptics such as Cude, 
I cannot make specific claims as to the contents of his posts, only that I do 
not care to read them.  However, I can claim that his posts are in fact quite
disruptive to the flow of discussion and hence to the purpose of this list.
If I were moderating this list, I would not tolerate it.
 
-Robert

RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Robert Ellefson]

> ... at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior
considered

> a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions? Now, if Cude is 

> genuinely making a good contribution I'll have nothing more to say on 

> this matter. But it would be interesting to hear a consensus on how much 

> of a genuine contribution Cude is allegedly making - from other Vort
members. 

 

Now that I am subscribed to the list, I have the ability to filter people 

such as Cude directly.  However, there is no reasonable means of filtering

the large volume of useless responses to his postings.  So, as when I read

the vortex web archives only, I am left to scan for names I recognize that I


suspect may have something to contribute through the noise.  This is tedious

and fundamentally error-prone.  The result is that I typically delete en
masse

the majority of related discussions.  I don't 

 

Because I quickly elected to simply ignore pseudo-skeptics such as Cude, 

I cannot make specific claims as to the contents of his posts, only that I
do 

not care to read them.  However, I can claim that his posts are in fact
quite

disruptive to the flow of discussion and hence to the purpose of this list.

If I were moderating this list, I would not tolerate it.

 

-Robert

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Ruby]

Scientific background's can be manufactured on the spot.  Big deal!

Ruby Carat
Bachelor's in Physics
Master's in Math
Free jazz musician

(All true)

Best credential?  No afraid to ask questions and admit ignorance.

But I sure don't want to confuse Cude with my booklearnin...





On 6/4/13 8:23 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:


Jed,

you admit that you haven't read most of his postings so you haven't a 
clue.  He is a liar.  His goal is to debunk.  That should be obvious.  
He has violated a number of rules, and we have been quite tolerant.


on 6/1:

"It's funny how the most vocal advocates for cold fusion shouting that 
skeptics are not scientific mostly have no scientific background. You 
and Lomax and Krivit (though not on Rossi), Carat, Wuller, Tyler, and 
all the engineers on this site. If there were anything to cold fusion, 
it really wouldn't need a bunch of untrained idiots to promote it."


-Mark




--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org 
United States 1-707-616-4894
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org 

RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Jed, 

you admit that you haven't read most of his postings so you haven't a clue.
He is a liar.  His goal is to debunk.  That should be obvious.  He has
violated a number of rules, and we have been quite tolerant.  10% of his
verbal diarrhea is useful, but the rest is sweeping generalizations, the
repetition of definitive-sounding statements which have been shown to be
wrong, and insults.  In case anyone missed it, Cude's arrogance is so
blatant as expressed in these two comments about people on this forum:

 

On 5/31:

"Man, this place is crawling with ignoramuses."

 

on 6/1:

"It's funny how the most vocal advocates for cold fusion shouting that
skeptics are not scientific mostly have no scientific background. You and
Lomax and Krivit (though not on Rossi), Carat, Wuller, Tyler, and all the
engineers on this site. If there were anything to cold fusion, it really
wouldn't need a bunch of untrained idiots to promote it."

 

-Mark

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 6:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

 

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

 

The guy is a liar.

 

I doubt that. I get a sense he is somewhat innumerate. People who claim that
14,700 tests are all errors do not have a strong grasp of probability, or
the basis of experimental science.

 

I am sure he sincerely believes that. No one would go on repeating that all
these years if they did not believe it. There is no point to repeating it,
especially here, where practically no one else agrees. It is like preaching
to atheists.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

The guy is a liar.
>

I doubt that. I get a sense he is somewhat innumerate. People who claim
that 14,700 tests are all errors do not have a strong grasp of probability,
or the basis of experimental science.

I am sure he sincerely believes that. No one would go on repeating that all
these years if they did not believe it. There is no point to repeating it,
especially here, where practically no one else agrees. It is like preaching
to atheists.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Kevin O'Malley]

The guy is a liar.  I showed how he's doing his probability wrong, because
he assumes EVERY one of 14,700 replications is in error.  He just keeps
repeating his error:

No, you don't know your mathematics, because that's like saying that the
chance of rolling 10 sixes out of 60 dice is (1/6)^10. It's nonsense.

He isn't here to shed light.  When a person is off by 4500 orders of
magnitude, he cannot be called the "one sane person in a nest of True
Believers".   His purpose is to debunk even when he's been shown to be
completely hundreds-of-orders-of-magnitude wrong.  Bill says debunking is
not allowed.  I would think that's when a guy is only off by a few dozen
orders of magnitude.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Vorl Bek  wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:35:47 -0500
> "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Beaty,
> >
> >
> >
> > When I opened up my mail box this morning I was flooded with over 40
> posted
> > messages from Joshua Cude. And it's only 7:10 AM in the morning. I know
> of
> > no one within the Vort Collective besides Cude that has displayed this
> > amount of excessive and obsessive posting behavior. How many more Cude
> posts
> > can we expect, today alone?
>
> Cude is one sane person in a nest of True Believers. He has every
> right to point out the nonsense the TBs are spouting.
>
> Others on this list post far more often than Cude, but you have
> nothing to say about them; it seems to me you just want to shut
> Cude up because you do not like what he says.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Vorl Bek]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:35:47 -0500
"OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
wrote:

> Mr. Beaty,
> 
>  
> 
> When I opened up my mail box this morning I was flooded with over 40 posted
> messages from Joshua Cude. And it's only 7:10 AM in the morning. I know of
> no one within the Vort Collective besides Cude that has displayed this
> amount of excessive and obsessive posting behavior. How many more Cude posts
> can we expect, today alone?

Cude is one sane person in a nest of True Believers. He has every
right to point out the nonsense the TBs are spouting.

Others on this list post far more often than Cude, but you have
nothing to say about them; it seems to me you just want to shut
Cude up because you do not like what he says.

Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:

But at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior
> considered a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions?
>

It is not a problem. Just filter the messages out. Frankly, I do not see
why you raise the issue.

I think this forum may have become a little too exclusive lately.

As I mentioned before, regarding Andrew, Bill explained to me that they
discussed the matter and agreed he should leave for a while anyway. Andrew
was not thrown out so much as he decided to leave. I myself had no
objection to his messages.

- Jed