Kevin I hope you will grow out of the sandbox one day. On Aug 11, 2014 11:57 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I do not know that I intended to provoke. >> > ***Weasel words from a weasel. You know your own intention, but here you > say "you do not know". It is your OWN intention, of COURSE you know. But > someone from a "strategic leadership" background and thin skin and a record > right here on this thread is compelled to write like you do. Weasel. > > > > >> I do have a technical question about howmany states there are >> (unanswered). >> > ***What a bunch of horse manure, in light of your previous response. > Geez, why don't you just give it up? > > > >> How you mix that with the name of my business I cannot understand. >> > ***Yup. I know you don't understand. And I know you cannot understand. > That's why you write in such a ridiculous manner. Perhaps some day you > will make some positive contribution to Vortex, one can only hope. > > > >> Even more do I think your unqualified, wrongful and mean evaluation of my >> person is insulting and uncalled for. >> > ***Like I said before, if you don't want the alligator to snap at you, > quit throwing rocks at him. Preschoolers know the wisdom of this. > Evidently, you are not smarter than a preschooler. > > > >> I have told you to contact me privately if you have a grudge to settle >> > ***I have no grudge to settle. Perhaps some day you will learn to be a > "strategic leader". But I doubt it. > > > >> . I do not think that being the case you just enjoy being judgemental. >> > ***You're so full of bowlsheeite. You've engaged in judgementalism since > your first post on this thread, and throughout. You just like to hide > behind weasel terms so that no one will call you out. Once they do, we all > see what an incredible weasel punk you are. Why did you start your > interactions with invective if you didn't want invective to ensue? Because > you are a weasel, that's why. > > >> I.suggest you stick to the issues instead of dabble in evalutions you >> have neither qualifications nor informations to do. >> > ***And I suggest you go back to "strategic followership"... oops, that's > supposed to be strategic leadership, but with your approach there is no > discernible difference. > > > >> On Aug 10, 2014 7:56 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Lennart: >>> >>> Why don't you just leave me alone? You started out on this thread >>> intending to provoke, so you've achieved provocation. Now that you don't >>> like the result you wanna backtrack. I get it. So then back track. Get >>> lost. Go and teach someone about your supposed "strategic leadership" >>> which is neither strategic nor leadership. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other. >>>> I cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself >>>> holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any >>>> hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure you >>>> that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep >>>> whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally >>>> think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in >>>> the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about >>>> your problems whatever they are. >>>> On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I know enough about your life that you need to get one. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is >>>>>> the sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an >>>>>> analtyical >>>>>> engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that >>>>>> is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the >>>>>> ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured >>>>>> out >>>>>> how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by >>>>>> your >>>>>> floskel. >>>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Get a life, Lennart >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox >>>>>>>> logics. I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .". >>>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop >>>>>>>>> throwing rocks at him. Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. >>>>>>>>>> Inhave not asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> you can make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any >>>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>>> vendetta. I admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the >>>>>>>>>> beginning an engineer as well. >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about >>>>>>>>>>>> management/leadership. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We had a talk about my subject not long ago. It did not go >>>>>>>>>>>> very well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid >>>>>>>>>>> argument together and are basically a follower not a leader. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason >>>>>>>>>>>> I try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me >>>>>>>>>>>> that state >>>>>>>>>>>> of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an >>>>>>>>>>>> infinite >>>>>>>>>>>> number of states. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style: You >>>>>>>>>>> follow a crowd. Not only that but you did not understand the >>>>>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>>>> contention. So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> barking in the first place. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate. >>>>>>>>>>>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any >>>>>>>>>>>> new states. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***Your friends are not correct. You THINK we are looking for >>>>>>>>>>> new states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what >>>>>>>>>>> has been >>>>>>>>>>> agreed in science. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for >>>>>>>>>>>> reasons beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of >>>>>>>>>>>> more hard to describe/understand states is required. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning. >>>>>>>>>>> Recall my prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it >>>>>>>>>>> reflects on your "leadership". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The whole discussion about different theories is way too >>>>>>>>>>>> adament in my opinion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion >>>>>>>>>>> isn't worth much. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted >>>>>>>>>>>> by a wide group of scientists. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of >>>>>>>>>>> LENR is not accepted by a wide group of scientists. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all >>>>>>>>>>>> theories would propel the search for a solution forward much >>>>>>>>>>>> faster than >>>>>>>>>>>> the attempt to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> theology level.. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***I didn't say that AT ALL. I don't see how you get that from >>>>>>>>>>> what I wrote. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR >>>>>>>>>>> observations. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They might be depending on which state of matter they are >>>>>>>>>>>> working in. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***POTO. (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are >>>>>>>>>>> saying something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention >>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>> acting as if you're arguing against it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, >>>>>>>>>>>> Axil, Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> reason one is better? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***Sounds good to me. But how you got to the point that you >>>>>>>>>>> somehow thought I was saying something different than this is >>>>>>>>>>> utterly >>>>>>>>>>> baffling. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, >>>>>>>>>>>>> there are only 4 sates of matter (traditionally): solid, liquid, >>>>>>>>>>>>> gas, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> plasma. Trying to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so >>>>>>>>>>>>> far has >>>>>>>>>>>>> proven fruitless, although plasma is a state of matter that I >>>>>>>>>>>>> simply do not >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is an arc a plasma? My readings tell me: sometimes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come >>>>>>>>>>>>> from one of these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of >>>>>>>>>>>>> them). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet >>>>>>>>>>>>> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Solid >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liquid >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plasma >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bose-Einstein Condensate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would occur as the newest & least understood state of matter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ….Especially when plasma might be involved, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation occurs in a very special case of Condensed Matter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physics. … Are there other states of matter being postulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at this point? Some of the Zero Point Energy/Vaccuum/Aether >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff might >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply, but it does not hold weight in mainstream physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> partly or wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrons exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> macro reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> here are a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> few more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>>> most likely already has such a list, and indeed it can be found >>>>>>>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
