Russ George <[email protected]> wrote: Clearly many Vorts are attacking Rossi by using such words as ‘scam’ >
Jones Beene is the only person here who has said that. The only other use of the word is here: ". . . the possibility of him being a scammer is remote." > and trying to disparage the people Rossi has agreed to work with even > though both Rossi and IH had to agree to such people’s competence. > I am not disparaging Penon by pointing out that he made egregious errors. This is a science discussion group. One of the purposes here is to point out errors. Anyone who reads his report will find this error and many others. > To disparage the competence of Penon based on old work and not the present > well monitored work is to disparage the competence and/or the credibility > of Rossi. > Old work? You make it sound like it was from when he was in high school. This was in 2012 for crying out loud. Rossi has been incompetent in many of his tests. As I and others have pointed out, he did not even realize the unit was plugged up and the flow rate was zero during the NASA tests, and when they pointed this out to him, he become hysterical and threw them out. In other tests he did not even bother to insert and SD card in the thermocouple reader. He is incredibly smart in some ways, but his experimental technique is often sloppy. > In the environment where the word ‘scam’ and ‘scammer’ is so prominent > attacks of this sort/vort on Penon are clearly meant to be insulting and > slanderous to Rossi . . . > 1. These are not attacks. This is science. You are supposed to point out mistakes. 2. What I clearly mean to do is to point out mistakes. Do not ascribe to me motivations I do not have. - Jed
