Mitchell Swartz wrote:
LOL. Despite the faux innocence by Rothwell, the papers were far more than a couple of graphs. They were complete, including references and acknowledgements.
I do not recall what they had. They were not electronic, and I do not deal with non-electronic documents. I am a new age digital person, unlike Mizuno who says he is "an analog human in a digital world."
Furthermore, despite the systematic faux innocence by Rothwell, reportedly Peter Hagelstein told Storms or Rothwell . . .
Peter Hagelstein has told me absolutely nothing. I do not have a single e-mail message from him after ICCF10. I do not think he is upset with me or anything like that, but he has been awfully busy. We had a nice time together in Marseille, but we did not discuss ICCF10. I bought him some chocolate snails, because he seems so fond of French cooking -- especially escargot.
that he had the papers and that it was wrong for them not to list even the
titles of papers at their purported (but not) "official ICCF-10 Site", located on
the documented censored, and apparently misnamed, LENR/CANR site.
It is emphatically NOT the "official ICCF-10 Site"!!! We had to make this clear per our agreement with Peter Hagelstein. Every paper must have the following disclaimer at the top:
"This paper was presented at the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion. It may be different from the version published by World Scientific, Inc (2003) in the official Proceedings of the conference."
I hope there is nothing on the page that will give anyone the idea this is the official site. I expect Swartz will continue to tell people that in order to stir up trouble, but anyone who glances at any paper in the collection will see he is wrong.
- Jed
