From Robin and Abd:
Actually none of this is necessary. If it is posted on his own
website, then all you need on LENR-CANR.org is a URL pointing to
it iso to your own web site. It wouldn't matter in the slightest
to the rest of the world where the actual document resides.
Robin has a point.
At 11:22 AM 10/2/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
If you would agree, perhaps some of us could edit sections of your
bibliography HTML to add links; links to original publishers might be
useful in any case, whether or not you host the actual paper, and
send these sections to you
HI Abd,
You are not the first to suggest that my two cents may be worth even less.
First of all, I just want to be clear on the fact that I have been impressed
by the amount of tireless work you have doing over in the Wiki thicket
trying to improve the flow of accurate information. No doubt,
At 09:37 PM 10/2/2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
First of all, I just want to be clear on the fact that I have been impressed
by the amount of tireless work you have doing over in the Wiki thicket
trying to improve the flow of accurate information. No doubt, it's a
thankless
At 08:45 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
Please note that Dr. Swartz has not as yet posted the URLs of the papers
to Vortex.
I posted a URL to the two papers Swartz cited, and those
republications of the journal that I linked to have many more papers
by Swartz, he's done a lot of work. However, I
At 12:47 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
Dr.
Swartz:
You should read carefully Stephen Lawrence's
post today, 9/30/2009, at 6:16PM.
You might want to recind your comment since
Stephen included quotes from as far back as 5 Dec 2004 which CLEARLY show
that Jed has ALWAYS admitted that he got the CD
In retrospect, I think the title of this thread is an exaggeration. A
regrettable overstatement. Swartz is not actually running an
extortion racket. What he does is to use the legal system to bully,
intimidate and silence people who disagree with him or criticize his
work. I know he does this
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Jed and others on vortex have had permission for quite a long time.
That's ambivalent. Jed and others is not clear, and what exactly is it we
have permission to do?
This is the sort of vague statement that got me in trouble the first time.
Swartz sorta maybe kinda
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:15:07 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
I hereby grant permission to Jed Rothwell to copy my paper now on-line at
http:x, and to upload a copy to the library at LENR-CANR.org in text
Acrobat format.
Actually none of this is necessary. If it is posted
For the record, and as best as I can tell, Dr. Swartz has never had
anything bad to say about anyone's mother.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Sheesh, I'd call him on his bluff!
I feel tempted to do it for sport.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:59 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
For the record, and as best as I can tell, Dr. Swartz has never had
anything bad to say about anyone's mother.
Regards
Steven
Steven V Johnson wrote:
For the record, and as best as I can tell, Dr. Swartz has never had
anything bad to say about anyone's mother.
Well, if he ever says anything bad about your mother, I advise you
not to quote him, or you will soon be hearing from his attorney. I
expect to be hearing
Stick them autonomously on usenet and no one will be able to remove them for
a year, plus no one can find who did it
Anyone with a usenet account can freely access it, actually the way
retention is growing in a year retention at many brokers may have grown to 2
years...
Of course no one has
At 03:35 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell wrote:
Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as:
I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why
Mr. Rothwell wasn't able to read/scan what I presume were
hardcopy documents allegedly given to him by Dr. Swartz at a prior
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Extort money? It is a lie.
I never did this. Nor would I ever.
So, this time I will not be hearing from you or your attorney? That's
a relief. Maybe you should give back the money you extorted from others.
If you do send any more extortion letters by
At 06:58 PM 9/30/2009, Met Rothwell wrote:
Dr. Mitchell Swartz
wrote:
Extort money? It
iit a lie.
I never did this. Nor would I ever.
So, this time I will not be hearing from you or your attorney? That's a
relief. Maybe you should give back the money you extorted from
others.
If you do send
Interesting. As a total outsider, of course I'm in no position to
confirm any of this, but it makes more sense than anything else I've
heard or seen written about this strange situation.
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as:
I'm left with two conflicting
Interesting.
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 03:35 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell wrote:
Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as:
I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why
Mr. Rothwell wasn't able to read/scan what I presume were hardcopy
documents allegedly
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Interesting.
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 03:35 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell wrote:
Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as:
I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why
Mr. Rothwell wasn't able to read/scan what I presume were
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Update: Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on Vortex,
as of about an hour ago. I don't know if it's one of the papers Jed was
considering uploading or not.
Why now?
Terry
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Update: Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on Vortex,
as of about an hour ago. I don't know if it's one of the papers Jed was
considering uploading or not.
I have not considered uploading any paper by Swartz for the last 10 years.
Not since he
At 09:26 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell, proven disingenuous, wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Update: Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on
Vortex,
as of about an hour ago. I don't know if it's one of the papers
Jed was
considering uploading or not.
Rothwell: I have not
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
I thanked Jed, pointed out that I had not seen the table,
and that one observation was that when the papers which were
distributed to the DOE in 2004 (as they assembled to consider
CF/LANR) were examined, the table indicates that all of the papers
of Prof. Dash
:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: bd...@cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket
At 09:26 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell, proven disingenuous, wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Update: Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on Vortex,
as of about an hour ago. I
Jed, if Dr. Swartz is correct about your propensity for anaphylactic
shock, you either should not read this or you should have an epi-pen handy.
At 06:31 PM 9/30/2009, Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Rothwell: Actually, he sent a CD-ROM which I could not read. Later
I got electronic copies of all
At 06:58 PM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
1. Upload your papers to your own damn web site.
2. Give me explicit, public permission to copy them.
If I see you have erased them from your site I will erase them from
LENR-CANR faster than you can say knife, so don't try that cute
little trick
At 07:08 PM 9/30/2009, Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Seems you were just exposed as a liar, Jed.
Because he didn't completely quote you? Dr. Swartz, just about every
word you write here gets you in deeper. Stop. Seriously. You can defy
this advice, and it will hurt me not at all, it will hurt
At 08:22 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
Interesting. As a total outsider, of course I'm in no position to
confirm any of this, but it makes more sense than anything else I've
heard or seen written about this strange situation.
This is the point I've been trying to make to Dr. Swartz. Your
reaction
28 matches
Mail list logo
