SUBJECT: Jullian Opinions To Michel Jullian,
I noticed you recently stated: > It follows that saying "palladium was electrolyzed in > D2O+LiOD" is like saying "a blood tester was analyzed > in blood", sounds absurd doesn't it? If it's too late > to correct your book for such absurdities, could you > correct at least the paper so it doesn't disgrace the > lenr.org library? I scanned through past posts pertaining to the subject thread: " Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)". I see you have made additional posts since then. I gather from your repeated attempts to draw Ed Storms into a dialogue with you that you have extensive knowledge in the field of electrochemistry, that you wish to put your accumulated experience to good use. I'm definitely not speaking from a humble perspective when I strongly suggest that it is not in anyone's best interest to attempt to educate others in a potentially manipulative manner. To inform an individual that they have in your opinion made an error in their work (such as in the title), but then deliberately not tell them specifically what the so-called error might be, as you initially did, is equivalent to a form of manipulative drama on the high seas. Such dialogue, ironically, focus more of the attention on you and the importance of your opinions rather than on the alleged mistake that needs to be corrected. It seems to me that if your objective had been to achieve resolution of the "mistake," you would have revealed the specifics of said "mistake" up front. What I found interesting was the fact that initially you chose not to do so - repeatedly. Repeatedly, you left it as a big mystery - an unfolding drama. That suggests a very different agenda other than having Ed ! Storm's best interests in mind. Performing drama of this nature in a public form should only be conducted by an experienced teacher. Indeed, teachers occasionally DO resort to this tactic if they are sure the students participating in the public dialogue will actually learn something valuable. The best teachers, the most honorable ones, have their student's best interests in mind. Others, on the other hand, who self-appoint themselves in the role of a "teacher" who then use this tactic on the targeted "student" are not so much interested in the welfare of their "student" or even in the learning process for that matter. They are more interested in propagating their personal opinions, attaching importance to them. Maybe you ARE a teacher, professionally speaking. I really don't know. Maybe you are even a GOOD teacher. Perhaps certain teachers really DO need the equivalent of an opinionated attention getting EGO in order to teach the good lessons. Nevertheless, a question you might want to ask yourself is: Did Ed Storm ever ask you to assume the role of a teacher for his educational benefit? And whose benefit was the initial exchange really meant for? Now that the incorrect use of terminology, the dirty laundry you attribute to Storm's title is finally out in the open, the ramifications for all to ponder deeply including your suggested corrections, I noticed you are now stating that his book contains "absurdities", that if published as-is, could "...disgrace the lenr.org library." You are entitled to your opinions. With not so many Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
