On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kevin, maybe you're right, who knows, but for the most part that > suggestion is pure innuendo. > ***No, it's not pure innuendo, it is partial innuendo. If I had posted that on April 3rd because the report was due in April, then it would be pure innuendo. And if I posted it after seeing internal correspondences between several members of the testing committee with their own families about how to take advantage of this upcoming report, it would be less than 1% innuendo. My stance is mixed innuendo, maybe 33%. Because Rossi said there is a commitment from that team to generate a report regardless of the outcome. To be this far down the road with no report but indications that they're looking into nuclear isotopes means that they have allowed bullshit into the equation. > It's like making the argument that Gamberle has some shadowy partner who > wants to steal DGT's technology, and so he broke his NDA and issued > a fraudulent statement to make DGT look bad. Possibly, but that's quite the > story with very little evidence to back it up. > ***Maybe it's like that, maybe it isn't. But the analogy is useless. You'd want to find some other analogy where there was a perfectly good reason for inexcusable delays in generating a report. Something like the space shuttle disaster in 1984, why was the report so late. Richard Feynmann hinted that it was due to internal bickering over a bullshit statement that absolved NASA management. And sure enough, there was similar bickering in the 2nd space shuttle disaster. People act in their own selfish interest. Pointing that out is NOT pure innuendo. > > It's also similar in a way to pathological skeptics who immediately > ***No, immediately would have been April. Now it's June, with indications of a September release, which will likely be delayed even further. > rush to the most negative conclusion > ***HOw is this the most negative conclusion possible? I can think of several other possibilities that are far more negative than what I postulated. > and suggest all kinds of nefarious behavior behind the scenes > ***I'm suggesting that people act in selfish ways. Perhaps you would take issue with that? > (i.e. Levi, Essen, Hoistad, et al, are all "in on the scam", etc.), > ***That happens to be one of the "several other possibilities that are far more negative than what I postulated." > even though there's no good reason to think so, > ***If there is good reason to think so, then why do you call it "pure innuendo"? At the very least you should be saying "innuendo mixed with bias". > beyond the fact it might satisfy one's own biases. Obviously we're all > theory crafting to an extent, but I'd put your speculation pretty low on > the probability scale. > ***So... then... what is your speculation? You spent a bunch of energy using exaggeration fallacies to knock mine down. Where's yours? > > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Why bother with delaying the report for the sake of isotopic analysis >>> otherwise? >>> >> ***For exactly the reason I just detailed: they are using this >> information selfishly. >> >> >
