To Steven Vincent Johnson, Share and enjoy (mask the bottom halves of the letters, and read them in the local language of Eadrax)
Michel "Share and Enjoy" is the company motto of the hugely successful Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Complaints division, which now covers the major land masses of three medium sized planets and is the only part of the Corporation to have shown a consistent profit in recent years. The motto stands --- or rather stood --- in three mile high illuminated letters near the Complaints Department spaceport on Eadrax. Unfortunately its weight was such that shortly after it was erected, the ground beneath the letters caved in and they dropped for nearly half their length through the offices of many talented young complaints executives --- now deceased. The protruding upper halves of the letters now appear, in the local language, to read ``Go stick your head in a pig'', and are no longer illuminated, except at times of special celebration. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Vincent Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:11 PM Subject: [Vo]: > SUBJECT: Jullian Opinions > > To Michel Jullian, > > I noticed you recently stated: > >> It follows that saying "palladium was electrolyzed in >> D2O+LiOD" is like saying "a blood tester was analyzed >> in blood", sounds absurd doesn't it? If it's too late >> to correct your book for such absurdities, could you >> correct at least the paper so it doesn't disgrace the >> lenr.org library? > > I scanned through past posts pertaining to the subject thread: " Ed Storm's > confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)". > > I see you have made additional posts since then. > > I gather from your repeated attempts to draw Ed Storms into a dialogue with > you that you have extensive knowledge in the field of electrochemistry, that > you wish to put your accumulated experience to good use. > > I'm definitely not speaking from a humble perspective when I strongly suggest > that it is not in anyone's best interest to attempt to educate others in a > potentially manipulative manner. To inform an individual that they have in > your opinion made an error in their work (such as in the title), but then > deliberately not tell them specifically what the so-called error might be, as > you initially did, is equivalent to a form of manipulative drama on the high > seas. Such dialogue, ironically, focus more of the attention on you and the > importance of your opinions rather than on the alleged mistake that needs to > be corrected. It seems to me that if your objective had been to achieve > resolution of the "mistake," you would have revealed the specifics of said > "mistake" up front. What I found interesting was the fact that initially you > chose not to do so - repeatedly. Repeatedly, you left it as a big mystery - > an unfolding drama. That suggests a very different agenda other than having > Ed ! > Storm's best interests in mind. > > Performing drama of this nature in a public form should only be conducted by > an experienced teacher. Indeed, teachers occasionally DO resort to this > tactic if they are sure the students participating in the public dialogue > will actually learn something valuable. The best teachers, the most honorable > ones, have their student's best interests in mind. Others, on the other hand, > who self-appoint themselves in the role of a "teacher" who then use this > tactic on the targeted "student" are not so much interested in the welfare of > their "student" or even in the learning process for that matter. They are > more interested in propagating their personal opinions, attaching importance > to them. > > Maybe you ARE a teacher, professionally speaking. I really don't know. Maybe > you are even a GOOD teacher. Perhaps certain teachers really DO need the > equivalent of an opinionated attention getting EGO in order to teach the good > lessons. Nevertheless, a question you might want to ask yourself is: Did Ed > Storm ever ask you to assume the role of a teacher for his educational > benefit? And whose benefit was the initial exchange really meant for? > > Now that the incorrect use of terminology, the dirty laundry you attribute to > Storm's title is finally out in the open, the ramifications for all to ponder > deeply including your suggested corrections, I noticed you are now stating > that his book contains "absurdities", that if published as-is, could > "...disgrace the lenr.org library." > > You are entitled to your opinions. > > With not so many Regards, > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > >
