A message from Mary Yugo caught my attention before falling into the trash. She wrote:
Perhaps you could take a moment to explain how citing sources which can't > be named, which supposedly make claims in support of Rossi, and which you > claim told you they did independent tests but can't reveal materials, > methods and results -- maybe you can explain how that constitutes a part of > a "technical discussion". If it isn't, why are you doing it? > That is a reasonable question. I am doing it because many people here want to hear about these things. They enjoy it, and they ask me to say more. They understand that I am often unable to provide details because never reveal anything without permission. I am the opposite of Steve Krivit. If you do not enjoy what I write, I suggest you ignore it. If it bothers you a lot, please add my name to your kill file. The important point is, my messages do not violate any of the rules set forth by Beaty: "NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. 'Pathological Skepticism' is banned (see the link.) . . . Those rules do not say anything about "no discussion of unpublished results." Or "no discussion of one screen from a presentation by Mike McKubre." It is regrettable that so much in cold fusion has be kept secret, or in a low profile. That is because of academic politics. It is entirely the fault of powerful opponents who have been trying for 23 years to stamp out the research, gut academic freedom, and destroy the lives of the researchers. You are probably not a powerful opponent. I doubt that you have made any phone calls to derail funding or prevent experiments from being published. But when you refuse to read anything about cold fusion, and when you plaster cynical, ignorant comments about cold fusion here and in the mass media response sections, you contribute to the toxic atmosphere. You and the other small-time opponents prolong the travesty. So, to some extent this is your fault. There is plenty of blame to go around. - Jed
