Well worded and couldn't agree more. On Dec 18, 2011 6:29 PM, "Horace Heffner" <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
> First, let me say we should all keep in mind at year end contributing the > suggested $10 donation for vortex-l operation. > > The main purpose of this post is to bring up the issue of possibly routing > all non-technical material relating to the Rossi E-cat to vortex-B. > > The technical content of this list has been highly diluted, and the > posting rate greatly expanded. Many of the posts are now more appropriate > for tweeting than for posting on a scientific discussion list. > > The Rossi fraud-no-fraud issue is a dead horse that has been beaten to > death, worse than beaten, pulverized. The discussion has degenerated to > name calling and comparisons to antifeminism and racism. > > We have to remember the reason this list was created in the first place: > > http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.**html <http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html> > > "A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly > becoming a battleground for the two types. Those who reasoned that "we > must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is real" were > constantly attacked by those who believe "we must reject cold fusion > because there is little evidence for it." And vice versa. Particularly > shameful was the amount of hostility including sneering ridicule, emotional > arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and great use of the low, unscientific > techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See > http://amasci.com/weird/**wclose.html<http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html> > )" > > Rule 2 is found here: > > http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/**weird/wvort.html#rules<http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html#rules> > > "2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is > banned. "Pathological Skepticism" is banned (see the link.) The tone > here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. > Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some > tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in > disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test "crazy" claims > rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board! " > > The problem is what is reasonable to discuss on this list> It is rather > like: what is pornography? You know it when you see it. > > Personally I think the following are OK, even if about Rossi, if discussed > in a respectful and scientific fashion: > > 1. News developments (after all this is a news list), including news > reports, new papers, announcements, etc. > > 2. Experiment reports > > 3. Theory and theory papers > > 4. Related history of the field > > The problem is much discussion of Rossi has become repetitive, devoid of > technical content, and virulent. The problem is throwing out the bath > water and not the baby. What is needed is common sense and self restraint. > Given that is missing to a large extent at the moment, some remedy is > needed. > > We are losing members and/or meaningful member participation. The posting > volume is too high to keep up, at least for me. I only read about half of > what is posted, if that. I think something should be done. Anyone else > feel the same? > > Suggestions or comments are requested. > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/<http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/> > > > > >
