Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Randy Wuller wrote: This post prompted a reply from Maryugo. Since MY is banned here and at the Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she sent me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not elect to post. Yourself or MY can put it online and post the link here. There appears to be a misconception though. My message wasn't intended as an attack needing defense. I probably wasn't clear enough, but it was supposed to be: AHA, you're a Skeptic! Does 'MY' self-identify as a woo-woo? As a Believer, crackpot, fringe- follower, Fortean, Paranormalist, etc.? No?After all, Vortex-L is a woo-woo forum: Believers only, Skeptics very decidely NOT welcome here. However I don't ban the Debunkers outright, and only remove them if they become noisy enough to draw complaints, to turn the user base against them, or even to cause people to start unsubscribing. Besides being contrary to the purpose of the forum, Believer-Skeptic battles here are guaranteed to be endless almost by definition, since they'd only ever halt if the Skeptic decides to renounce their own identity and come over to join us in the enemy camp. Discussions on vort critical of claims are fine if they're taking place between fellow crackpots. :) The text for Rule 2 has the link which explains in more detail: MORE AT http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.txt (please read.) Here it is below, with a few more lines added to clarify... (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ beaty, chem washington edu Research Engineer billb, amasci com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700 http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html To put it bluntly, Vortex-L is a forum for true believers. People of the CSICOP Skeptic or scoffer/debunker persuasion are tolerated but not welcomed. For yet another definition of the two types of people, see the excellent article in SKEPTIC, V5 #2, Skepticism and Credulity: finding the balance between Type I and Type II errors by B. Wisdom. The article discusses the philosophy behind two types of mental attitude: 1. 'Scoffers:' those who, in order to reject all falsehoods, don't mind accidentally rejecting truths. 2. 'Believers:' those who, in order to accept all truths, don't mind accidentally accepting falsehoods. A few rare individuals fall between these two descriptions. However, there is significant polarization as well: whose who are solidly in the either the Skeptic or the Woo-woo camp greatly outnumber those who succeed in remaining between the two. I have observed that each highly-polarized camp holds their opponents in contemptuous disrespect bordering on outright hatred. The Scoffers regard the opposite camp as dangerously gullible true believers who'd allow Science to be damaged by irrational beliefs in such things as UFOs, psi phenomena, Free Energy, etc. And the Believers regard the other side as dangerously closeminded pathological skeptics who stifle curiousity, block free investigations, and preserve science from the crazy time- wasting projects of folks like Galileo, Goddard, the Wrights, Margulis, etc. One side worships at the altar of Khun's Normal Science, while the other kneels before the holy Khunian Revolution shrine. A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly becoming a battleground for the two types. Those who reasoned that we must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is real were constantly attacked by those who believe we must reject cold fusion because there is little evidence for it. And vice versa. Particularly shameful was the amount of hostility including sneering ridicule, emotional arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and great use of the low, unscientific techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See a href=http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html;http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html/a) I started this group as an openminded quiet harbor for interested parties to discuss the Griggs Rotor away from the believer-skeptic uproar on sci.physics.fusion. It quickly mutated into a believers forum for discussion of cold fusion and other anomalous physics. I created Rule #2 to prevent this list from becoming another battleground like the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup. Be warned: if you self-identify as non-Believer anti-woo, then you could be removed from the forum at any time. Vortex-L is intended to be a discussion area for researchers who have little patience with Kuhnian Normal Science, who practice extreme openmindedness, and who will accept falsehoods in order to avoid rejecting truths. I believe that many scientists reject new ideas because they unknowingly maintain an illusory worldview which is based on concensus of
RE: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
Bill: Don't know if you're aware, but MY's true identity has been determined... It started with a discovery by Robert Leguillon in this post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg62551.html And Terry added some additional thoughts in subsequent posts... The discourse has returned to the 'normal' rational, tech/sci-focused discussions which make this a unique forum... I tried several times to explain the uniqueness of the Collective to George, aka MaryYugo, but to no avail -- Thanks for performing the exorcism! Instead of people leaving due to 120+ postings a day, we now have comments like this: JoJo wrote: Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the embarrassing experimental advice coming. I have learned a lot from you and many other people here. Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining insight into replicating Rossi. And PeterB wrote: I have only been on Vortex a few months and I have gained much insight. There's a lot of smart people here with a wide range of views. I'm starting to learn to appreciate the criticisms more as well. It's good to be challenged -Mark
Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
Jed: This post prompted a reply from Maryugo. Since MY is banned here and at the Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she sent me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not elect to post. She has requested that I post her reply and I hesitate principally because this site has a right in my opinion to censor and a right to ban and if Bill has decided to both ban and censor MY, I conclude that I too would be in violation of his censor and ban on this occasion if I without authority posted her response. However, I am sympathetic with the rights of someone to defend themselves (being a lawyer) and it seems to me that if members of this site continue to post about MY, maybe she should be given a limited right to respond. Further, while I deem MY to be annoyingly repetitive, had she only occasionally pointed out the problem with the current state of Mr. Rossi's affairs, I for one would not have been troubled. MY does make valid points, it is just after reading the same point about 1,000 times, one has to say ENOUGH. I hesitated to join the Vortex because I see it as a what if site dedicated to discussing the possible science behind Cold Fusion (I like that Moniker better then LENR) and I am not really qualified (as a lawyer) to add much. However, even before joining I reviewed to posts almost daily and really enjoy the dialogue which has improved since the banning. I think site works best assuming Cold Fusion is real and dialoguing about why it works. Anyway, I leave it to Bill and the other members of Vortex as to whether I post MY's reply. If the answer is NO, I have it available for anyone interested. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM Subject: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message to Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was quoted in the Defkalion forum. It is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html He nailed it. I could not agree more. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
NO, for goodness sake! 2012/1/31 Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com ** Jed: This post prompted a reply from Maryugo. Since MY is banned here and at the Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she sent me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not elect to post. She has requested that I post her reply and I hesitate principally because this site has a right in my opinion to censor and a right to ban and if Bill has decided to both ban and censor MY, I conclude that I too would be in violation of his censor and ban on this occasion if I without authority posted her response. However, I am sympathetic with the rights of someone to defend themselves (being a lawyer) and it seems to me that if members of this site continue to post about MY, maybe she should be given a limited right to respond. Further, while I deem MY to be annoyingly repetitive, had she only occasionally pointed out the problem with the current state of Mr. Rossi's affairs, I for one would not have been troubled. MY does make valid points, it is just after reading the same point about 1,000 times, one has to say ENOUGH. I hesitated to join the Vortex because I see it as a what if site dedicated to discussing the possible science behind Cold Fusion (I like that Moniker better then LENR) and I am not really qualified (as a lawyer) to add much. However, even before joining I reviewed to posts almost daily and really enjoy the dialogue which has improved since the banning. I think site works best assuming Cold Fusion is real and dialoguing about why it works. Anyway, I leave it to Bill and the other members of Vortex as to whether I post MY's reply. If the answer is NO, I have it available for anyone interested. Ransom - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message to Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was quoted in the Defkalion forum. It is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html He nailed it. I could not agree more. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
Randy, i respect your wish to see george response published here, however unlike the vortex, george is not banned from the internet as far as i know. So i don't really see the point for him to request that you become his voice, unless being a lawyer makes you the perfect target for a proxy to talk through maybe ? Still there is one thing i kind of disagree with in your statement about the MY does make valid points part, those points where already known and established by jed, david, daniel, horace, bob and many others and i hope this is clear because it seems to be often forgotten in the flood. I don't know why but it seems to me some people felt like the vortex became Rossi's investors clubhouse, or DGT etc ... i believe this is not.
RE: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
So MaryYugo was still using HIS female-sounding pseudonym instead of HIS real name??? HE must think we're really stupid. is HE not aware of the fact that HIS identity has been clearly established??? Randy, send me HIS response and I'll look it over. -Mark From: Randy Wuller [mailto:rwul...@freeark.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power Jed: This post prompted a reply from Maryugo. Since MY is banned here and at the Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she sent me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not elect to post. She has requested that I post her reply and I hesitate principally because this site has a right in my opinion to censor and a right to ban and if Bill has decided to both ban and censor MY, I conclude that I too would be in violation of his censor and ban on this occasion if I without authority posted her response. However, I am sympathetic with the rights of someone to defend themselves (being a lawyer) and it seems to me that if members of this site continue to post about MY, maybe she should be given a limited right to respond. Further, while I deem MY to be annoyingly repetitive, had she only occasionally pointed out the problem with the current state of Mr. Rossi's affairs, I for one would not have been troubled. MY does make valid points, it is just after reading the same point about 1,000 times, one has to say ENOUGH. I hesitated to join the Vortex because I see it as a what if site dedicated to discussing the possible science behind Cold Fusion (I like that Moniker better then LENR) and I am not really qualified (as a lawyer) to add much. However, even before joining I reviewed to posts almost daily and really enjoy the dialogue which has improved since the banning. I think site works best assuming Cold Fusion is real and dialoguing about why it works. Anyway, I leave it to Bill and the other members of Vortex as to whether I post MY's reply. If the answer is NO, I have it available for anyone interested. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM Subject: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message to Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was quoted in the Defkalion forum. It is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html He nailed it. I could not agree more. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
As someone who has watched Vortex since last February, I agree with your assessment that many on Vortex have raised valid objections to many of Rossi's demos and his business strategy. I would certainly not characterize the vortex as a Rossi investor clubhouse, far from it. And of course because most of you have shown reasonable skepticism concerning various issues, the posts which caused the bannings were very irratating, even to an outsider like me. Notwithstanding, some of MY's points are valid, not conclusive but valid. The problem with MY, once a point is made we get it, people don't need someone clubing them over the head ad naseaum. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:25 PM, zer tte c_foreig...@yahoo.com wrote: Randy, i respect your wish to see george response published here, however unlike the vortex, george is not banned from the internet as far as i know. So i don't really see the point for him to request that you become his voice, unless being a lawyer makes you the perfect target for a proxy to talk through maybe ? Still there is one thing i kind of disagree with in your statement about the MY does make valid points part, those points where already known and established by jed, david, daniel, horace, bob and many others and i hope this is clear because it seems to be often forgotten in the flood. I don't know why but it seems to me some people felt like the vortex became Rossi's investors clubhouse, or DGT etc ... i believe this is not.
