Well, I'm totally surprised by Swartz's reply because at no time in the
past has this complaint been raised, neither privately nor on Vortex.
So, for the record, I would like to set the record straight.
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Vorts:
Ordinarily, I would not normally respond to either Ed Storms or Jed
Rothwell because we are too busy doing cold fusion
science and engineering, but because Dr. Storms continues his
foolishness and disingenuity, a response IS in order.
So, vorts, (and seekers of truth), there are two sides; and here are
the facts:
1. The issue is not about censorship of papers, but it is about the
systematic censorship of ICCF-10 titles by Storms and Rothwell,
while purporting they are the "official" ICCF-10 site.
At no time have Jed or I said that the LENR-CANR website was the
official site for ICCF-10. Jed has placed papers on the site obtained
from the authors as a service to the community while we waited for the
official proceedings to be published. These will be released in December
and the official papers will be placed somewhere as determined by Peter,
with a link to LENR-CANR. If Swartz thinks a title is missing, he only
needs to point this out to Jed rather than wasting our time here.
2. The issue #1 appears to have arisen because Edmund Storms apparently
plagiarized some of our work demonstrating
very low level excess heat on contaminated platinum cathodes (he learned
this generation of materials produced very low level
excess heat -what he later called 'crud'- while he attended LENR-2 in
Texas).
My observation of the activation of Pt was made completely independently
of Swartz and I'm in the habit of referencing other people's work when
it is available to me, as anyone can see when they read my papers. I
know of no publication by Swartz in which he describes the effect he
claims to have discovered. If he had brought such work to my attention
when I presented my observations, I would have gladly given him credit.
Storms thereafter apparently used his imposed egregious censorship to
cover it up, rather than simply citing prior art.
Confirming this, we have obtained a video of him receiving this
information prior to his becoming the second "first discoverer".
[Hence, in this light are Storms' vituperative odious endless attacks.
In fact, Storms' recent disputed claim to have been a
'lone inventor' in the recent MAKE magazine also corroborates his
sociopathology and disingenuity.
The Make magazine article was written by Charles Platt and it represents
his impression of my work. As is explained in the letter by Lewis
Larsen following the article, the article was not completely accurate. I
do not understand why this is any business of Swartz or why it is an
issue here.
"Dr. Storms is not currently engaged in research in this field as a
"solitary endeavor" nor is he a "lone garage scientist"
nor is he a "lone scientist" working on his own. ...."
http://www.makezine.com/03/interview/ ]
3. The issue is not about "infighting", but about the simple fact that
Storms and Rothwell attack anyone with whom
they disagree (and some with whom they agree).
I have attacked no one, as anyone who has read my comments can testify.
However, I do occasionally disagree with people and state why I have
this disagreement, as I have done with Swartz. I hope this approach is
still acceptable in science without it being called an attack.
4. The issue is not simply about their inaccuracy but also about the
fact that when Rothwell and Storms are directed to NOT
publish something, they do anyway (as in Rothwell's recent post) again
proving that neither can be trusted.
I have no idea what Swartz means by this statement. Jed made it very
clear that he publishes only with the author's permission. I challenge
Swartz to give an example of this accusation.
[Storms recent disputed claim to have been a 'lone inventor' in the
recent MAKE magazine also corroborates this.
"Dr. Storms is not currently engaged in research in this field as a
"solitary endeavor" nor is he a "lone garage scientist"
nor is he a "lone scientist" working on his own. ...."
http://www.makezine.com/03/interview/ ]
Finally, we (and I) have never worked with Ed Storms and so his
childish ad hominems arise only from his own mind, in part
created precisely because of his past plagiarism and other "problems"
some of which become intermittently obvious
when he endlessly attacks the President of the United States and
America's allies, even while America struggles in War.
[ Makes one wonder how many Los Alamos hard drives are missing, and how
many secrets have been leaked?]
I hope political opinions are not now used to suggest that a person can
not be believed or trusted. If this approach catches on, we can kiss
freedom of speech goodby and all interesting discussions on Vortex will end.
We have truly tried to move on repeatedly, but Ed Storms keeps coming
back to this matter attempting to rewrite what happened.
In this case, this is not a rewrite but my first answer to the issues
Swartz raises. As I said below, I do not think the way Swartz answers
issues about his work to be very useful, so I hope this exchange ends
with this response.
Regards,
Ed
Hope that helps clarify what is really going on.
Dr. Mitchell Swartz
==============================================================================================
At 01:36 PM 9/19/2005, you wrote:
I hope you notice that this issue is very one sided. I have no
problem with Swartz other than he can not carry on what I consider to
be a useful discussion of either his work or of the issue he considers
to be censorship. His main problem with me has been my disagreement
with his interpretation of his work. Such difference of opinion is
natural and is generally resolved by an objective, unemotional
discussion, which Swartz does not seem willing to undertake. As a
result, I avoid further interaction - being busy doing more productive
work and discussions with other people. I hope this makes my position
more clear. I'm sure you know of people in your life with whom you
have the same problem. Normally, such problems do not reflect on the
subject of the conflict, which seems to be the case here with respect
to cold fusion.
Regards,
Ed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, what's this Storms Swartz Rothwell thing. Can you have it out
and tell
us just what it is you don't like about each other? It's intriguing.
Can you
act like grown ups for the younger crowd?
I guess some people are born never to get along.
NO SOLUTION :)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alex Caliostro
Sent: 19 September 2005 17:46
To: [email protected]
Subject: infighting
i don't see how you will ever convince the doe to fund cold fusion if
you can't get along
maybe we should all honor this day, me maties
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html
or maybe we need a new religion
http://www.venganza.org/
or both
http://www.venganza.org/sightings/index.htm
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
