>From Brad Lowe
> As far as professional suicide goes... I don't think it will apply.. > Its nice that someone takes a stand for their position and puts > their livelihoods and reputations on the line.. As strange as it might seem for me to say this - I tend to agree with you... but only to a point. Most certainly, Mr. Krivit has taken a bold (though some would say: foolish) position and then stuck with it. IMHO, Mr. Krivit has chosen the wrong subject in which to make a highly dramatic public stand on. As previously stated, I think Mr. Krivit would do much better, career-wise, if he were to go after the greedy elements within our country's health care system. He should start ferreting out the huge amount of financial waste happening such as in obscenely fat salaries being paid out to health care administrators while the rest of us who end up in a hospital are forced to pay a dollar fifty for a Tylenol tablet, which costs 1.5 cents when purchased at Wallmart. For Christ sake, Steve has a degree in business administration! I think Steve has more than enough "business qualification" under his belt to analyze the questionable financial practices of various business institutions... certainly more in that field as compared to the "qualifications" he feigns he has that justifies his incessant attempts to interpret for his readership the definition of "fusion". As a matter of record, and as a former Board Member on Krivit's New Energy Times's organization, I had a number of extensive phone conversations with Steve over a period of time that coincided with his posted analysis of McKubre's M4 report. Krivit implied that McKubre had manipulated his experimental data. Having just joined the NET team as the newest Board Member I was not expecting Mr. Krivit to suddenly publish a report that attacked McKubre. I immediately felt uncomfortable. I wondered what I had gotten myself into. I soon learned exactly what I had gotten myself into. Mr. Krivit claimed he wanted feedback from his BoD members in order to improve his reporting skills. Unfortunately, nobody on Steve's NET board was, IMO, sufficiently qualified to analyze his conclusions on McKubre. I knew I certainly wasn't qualified to analyze, let alone criticize McKubre's data. Meanwhile, I observed very little evidence that any of the NET BoD members seemed particularly interested in challenging Steve's report, nor did anyone seemed particularly interested in asking serious challenging questions. I would also add that few, if any of them were aware of vortex-l and the already extensive amount of posted M4/Krivit analysis produced from various participants such as Abd Lomax. In due course it became very clear to me that BoD members who challenged Steve's conclusions were eventually asked to resign. By the time I came on board, I had learned the fact that there already existed an impressive list of former X BoD members who had challenged Steve, and who were then subsequently told to leave. FYI, there are a few "X"s BoD members were also Vortex-l members. That now includes me as well I would urge anyone who might be interested in reading a thorough analysis of Mr. Krivit's analytical skills, including the M4 incident , do yourself a favor and browse a series of posts out at NewVortex produced by Abd Lomax. See: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/ As it is Abd Lomax's obsessive nature to do so, he has generated an excruciating amount of detail here, with links pointing to source data. I'm included in some of Abd's analysis too, embarrassingly so I might add. Hey! I'll survive. ;-) As for my own assessment of Mr. Krivit, I still think Steve has great potential to become a very good investigative reporter - but only if he gets around to investigating a more appropriate that better suits his inquisitive, suspicious nature. The sooner Steve figures that out the better. IMHO, Steve's greatest Achilles heel is his proclivity to become highly suspicious of the motivations and intentions of others - particularly when his personal interactions with them leave him confused or uncertain as to what had just transpired. There's certainly nothing wrong with feeling confused or uncertain about our interactions with others. It's just another one of those damned "learning experiences" we all go through over and over! ;-) However, how we personally learn to deal with our own personal confusions and uncertainties to a very large extent determines how successful, or unsuccessful we will be in our personal life and our interactions with others. In Steve's case, it's been my observation that his suspicions tend to sabotage his investigative skills. Unfortunately, when Steve becomes suspicious... for whatever reason, his ability to analyze data attributed to that individual, the events surrounding that individual, and finally, the eccentric proclivities of the individual's personality - suffers. Steve's ability to think objectively about that individual, without his personality filtering what it is that he is seeing or feeling, is thrown into the trash can. All too often, the targeted individual seems to get transformed into a personal effigy that Steve must relentlessly attack over and over. All too often, when Steve begins his attack campaigns I begin to see less and less objective reporting, and more and more of Steve attempting to unconsciously work out personal issues he has yet to address in a conscious manner. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
