Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 11:14 AM 12/6/2004, Jed Rothwell, disingenuous-as-ever, falsely wrote that our papers were "phantom".
Well, Mitch, phantom or real, they are now listed in the database. So you have nothing left to complain about. Ha, ha!
I will delete them if you would like. I would be happy to delete all 30 of your papers. Just say the word!
Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices",
ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003), and
Swartz. M., "Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized
Palladium Cathodes in D2O", ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003),
were BOTH listed originally for ICCF10, and assigned Monday and Tuesday for the dates.
Of course. Anyone reading the ICCF-10 program and abstracts will see that:
http://lenr-canr.org/iccf10/ICCF10Abstracts.pdf
They will also see that we have not "censored" Swartz from this or any other document. But that has nothing to do with our bibliography. Whether papers were assigned or read makes no difference to me. I only list papers that were actually written and published. As far as I know these two phantom papers were not published and never will be, but I will bend the rules and include them anyway. What harm?
By the same token, if someone prepares a paper for a conference, but they are not able to attend, I would be happy to publish the paper at LENR-CANR.org anyway. After all that work they deserve to have the paper published, at least by us.
From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
".... This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't
have leg to stand on and he knows it. - Gene "
Well, Gene was often full of crap, wasn't he? I never hesitated to tell him that when he was alive, and I do not mind repeating it now. I have no special respect for the dead. Anyway, he did more good than harm. But he had out-of-date notions about the Internet. He thought of it as a new type of print medium. He did not understand the key differences between publishing electronically and on paper. He did not understand the Web is unbounded and therefore a web site such as LENR-CANR.org should be narrowly focused and limited to papers strictly about metal lattice cold fusion, because otherwise the readers will be annoyed. It is like "pop-up" advertising. Even if the reader would be favorably disposed toward a paper on zero point energy, he will be annoyed when you shove it in his face when he is looking for a paper about cold fusion instead.
Gene thought it was censorship to exclude papers about other anomalous energy claims, whereas I see it as simple logic and a librarians' prerogative. We can open up a dozen other web sites devoted to other topics -- such as zero point energy. It would cost virtually nothing, and readers would find these other sites as easily and as readily as they find LENR-CANR.org. Nearly all searches nowadays come through Google. Therefore it makes no sense to assert we are "censoring" papers, when all we are saying is that these other papers fall in other categories so they should be uploaded elsewhere. Gene's objection was analogous to getting upset because a librarian refuses to put cold fusion books on the same shelf with cook books or detective stories.
It is true though, that we have rejected a small number of papers for being technically inept and without merit. We also insist that papers be written into reasonably understandable English. I have devoted a couple of months to rewriting them myself. Even a public library will occasionally refuse to carry books that fail to meet minimum standards of quality. However, Gene was not complaining about these rare rejections. In fact I doubt he knew about them. He was complaining about the general principle of excluding entire categories, such as zero-point energy.
- Jed
