Nice insight. You got that exactly right: vorticians (and creative, open-minded people in general) seem to be at the low end of the "authoritarianism" scale, as defined by... who else? one Professor Altemeyer. LOL.
I had previously thought of it more as cynicism towards politics... instead
of left or right - and to be blunt, the present administration has been no
less authoritarian than the previous one (in fact, due to leaks about NSA
spying and DHS - possibly more authoritarian, rather than less).
Curiously... for the name-phreaks amongst us, the German word meier, from
which the surname Meyer derives, was a status name for a landowner or
overseer...
From: Jed Rothwell
Kevin O'Malley wrote:
This is a depressing exchange at FreeRepublic. That is a
depressing website.
***Not normally. It's right wing politics. Most Vorts seem
to be left wing.
I think that most Vorts are not left or right wing, and not
liberal or conservative. I think they are scientific and that puts them at
the low end of the "authoritarianism" scale, as defined by Prof. Altemeyer:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
In detail here:
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
A person can be politically liberal yet authoritarian, or
very conservative and authoritarian. Generally speaking conservative people
tend to be on the authoritarian end of the scale.
John Bockris was politically conservative but at the low end
of the authoritarianism scale. Most good scientists cluster at the low end,
because it encourages free inquiry and an open mind. Bockris had no
compunction about trying to do classical medieval style alchemy. He made no
apologies. He described in a matter-of-fact tone the way one of his
colleagues doing that ended up in prison. See p. 31:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf
I gave up on discussions of this nature years ago. I figure
there is no point to arguing with people who will not do their homework.
They have no interest in learning the truth.
***I don't mind, for a while. I see it as documenting the
dialog. But the reason why I started posting exchanges here is that the
moderators at FR started pulling threads entirely, getting rid of ALL the
dialog.
That is typical authoritarian behavior. As I said, people at
both extreme ends of the political spectrum tend to do things like that. It
is good that you have preserved this text.
The answer is: "That is incorrect. In some cases cold fusion
cells have produced 100 W or more, and they have boiled 10 to 50 ml of water
continuously for hours or in a few cases, for months."
***Got links? I'll post them.
This is the one I cited during my lunchtime talk at ICCF18:
Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. Results of ICARUS 9
Experiments Run at IMRA Europe. in Sixth International Conference on Cold
Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan:
New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo
Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
- Jed
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
