You and I agree there is no data from the demo under discussion! So all of the chatter about whether Rossi does good or bad work is preposterous untimely speculation. That’s NOT science that is school yard rude behavior.
As for data on Rossi’s acumen as a smart businessman the data in his legal paperwork is clearly demonstrable of his great capability. His recent note in response to IH is more solid data on Rossi’s command of business and science. I see only scant evidence of Rossi having “peers” on Vortex-l, and as such that reinforces my admonition to Vorts to be patient and polite or STFU and wait for the data! If you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything is age old advice that still applies. From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 8:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi Russ George <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: What’s objectionable here is to suggest that the governance of Rossi’s year long demo has been done without the benefit of hindsight. It’s a particularly irksome trait to suggest that Rossi et al were/are so incompetent as to not do a good job this time with $10 million in hand to pay for proper resources… Look, I.H. said that. Not us. No one here has said anything about the quality of the one-year test because the Penon report has not been released. It is impossible to say anything about the test until you read the report. You can't do science by ESP. To suggest past efforts reflect on present efforts, even recent past when we know money was in short supply one can ought to understand some less than perfect work. It could have been done better for the same amount of money. It was sloppy. It would have cost nothing to insert an SD card. Many professionals repeatedly suggested to Rossi ways that he could improve his tests. He ignored them all. This is after all a pioneering field and to sit back in the stockade and shoot arrows of criticism into the back of the guy out there hacking a new trail is truly shoddy work to say the least. No, it isn't shoddy. This is science. Critiquing work and pointing out mistakes and sloppy work is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is a trait of the peanut gallery to imagine things out on the frontier are more simple than they are and thus deserving of sniping critiques. I see no sniping here. If you call it sniping to point out at Penon should have calibrated, you & I define "sniping" differently. - Jed
