Since Swartz has once again brought up his obsession about censorship at
LENR, this gives me an opportunity to clarify the criteria used to put
papers on the LENR website. For the sake of this discussion, the website
has two parts: a listing of over 3000 papers having some relevance to
cold fusion and a collection of papers that can be read in full text.
Papers are added to the listing if they have been published in some form
that gives access to the general public. Readers are encouraged to
suggest papers that might have been missed without an accusation of
censorship. Thirty papers by Swartz are listed in the collection and are
available from the author upon request.
Full text papers are accepted provided three conditions have been met.
1. The paper is available in suitable electronic or physical form.
2. Permission by the author and/or the copyright holder has been obtained.
3. The paper meets a minimum level of professional competence.
These are criteria used by all publications and journals, and are not
considered censorship.
The main issue in Swartz's complaint appears to involve Item #3. A
significant number of papers in the cold fusion field are poorly written
or do not advance an understanding of the subject. Occasionally, with
the author's permission, Jed has attempted to make a paper more
understandable. If an author can not or will not improve a paper and/or
it is deemed to be unprofessional, it will not be put on the website in
full text, even though it will be listed and would be available from the
author upon request. Jed's use of the political argument for this
approach is only a part of the issue. Like any source of information,
the LENR website tries to maintain a standard of credibility and
competence that reflects well on the field. As he argues, what we all
publish and how we all describe the subject influence how well the
subject itself is accepted. If Swartz believes a good paper has been
overlooked, he is free, as are all users of the website, to bring this
omission to Jed's attention without accusation. Occasionally, a good
paper can not be provided in full text because the author will not give
permission. Occasionally, the copyright holder will not give permission.
And, occasionally we do not think the paper is suitable. This is not
censorship, but instead two people trying to do the best they can to
advance the field.
Ed
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Swartz has repeatedly accursed me of censoring his work. This is
simply not true. In fact, several weeks ago, Mitchell called me and
during this conversation I assured him that if he sent me his papers
in a useable format, I would see that they were placed on the website.
In addition, Jed and I both have made this promise several times in
the past. Nevertheless, as yet, I have not received the papers even
though various people on Vortex have also suggested Swartz provide the
papers. I can only conclude that Swartz gets some satisfaction by
accusing Jed and I of censorship and does not wish to end this false
accusation. Hopefully, this subject will not waste any more time.
Dear Edmund,
There are many untruths in your above statements (vide infra).
Censorship at the misnamed LENR site is longstanding, and no-one
gets any satisfaction as the two of you impair the community.
Science is based upon truth and full reporting, Ed.
1) For example, even tonight, I observed that the papers of Dr. Ken
Shoulders
still are censored. What a shame. His work is incredibly important.
Proof:
"Sankaranarayanan
Savvatimova
Scaramuzzi
Schreiber
Schwinger
Shamoo
Shanahan
Shrikhande
Shyam
Spallone
Srinivasan
Storms
Stringham
Szpak"
2) Rothwell has already admitted censorship.
At 10:45 AM 8/23/2004, Jed Rothwell wrote to vortex admitting to
censoring, but then purported
it was for "political reasons", such as not to upset some of his
"critics" (ROTFLOL)
so he will not get hit with by "a baseball bat (given) to Robert Park".
Rothwell: "I will not hand a baseball bat to Robert Park and ask him to
please hit me over the head with it! It is a shame that CF is so
political,
but it is, and we must pay attention to politics, image and public
relations."
3) This is quite consistent when compared to the definition, after Webster:
"censor - to subject to censorship;
an official who reads communications and deletes forbidden material."
4) Hence, Dr. Mallove, Mr. Webster, and the other were all correct.
========== from the late beloved Dr. Eugene Mallove=============
==== Subject: "Storms/Rothwell censorship" =============
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004
Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship
From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Mitchell Swartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Mitch,
FYI -- this was a message that Rothwell posted to Vortex about a month ago:
"At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims
related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or
biological transmutations, along with some of the extremely unconventional
theories. This is not because we (Storms and Rothwell) oppose these claims,
or because we are upset by them. It is for political reasons only. The goal
of LENR-CANR is to convince mainstream scientists that CF is real. This
goal would be hampered by presenting such extreme views. Actually, I have
no opinion about most theories, and I could not care less how weird the
data may seem. At the Scientific American and the APS they feel hostility
toward such things. They have a sense that publishing such data will harm
their readers and sully the traditions and reputation of academic science.
I am not a member of the congregation at the Church of Academic Science,
and I could not care less about the Goddess Academia's Sacred Reputation. I
don't publish because of politics and limited web space.
- Jed"
"This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't
have leg to stand on and he knows it."
- Gene
================= end of missive ===================
5) This censorship was first noticed when Storms/Rothwell even censored
the TITLES
of papers by Dr. Bass, Dr. Shoulders and myself (and others) of papers
given at ICCF-10.
Even the titles -- while they advertised their site as representing ICCF-10.
That was outrageous. Even the TITLES.
They did not add the titles until long after Dr. Mallove was murdered.
6) Despite, Edmunds putative claim that he never got the papers
as discussed in or about August 2004, it was clear that
Jed got the papers on pdf and other formats. Jed waited for Ed Storms'
approval.
Jed and Storms also got the papers by mail on hard-copy print.
Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. It never came.
Jed got the papers in hand at Gene's funeral. Jed waited for Ed Storms'
approval.
Jed later got the papers by CD-ROM, and I doubt he had trouble
since we discussed the papers on the telephone AND since no one else
who received the CDROM had trouble. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval.
7) Documenting and admitting that the two of them are involved in this,
attention
is directed to:
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003
"Furthermore, I have no editorial role in LENR-CANR. Ed and others make all
decisions about what papers will be uploaded. All I do is OCR the papers
and generate the indexes.
- Jed"
8) For the record, I support, and have always supported, the right of
Rothwell and you
to do this because it is your choice, even if it has been
counterproductive to the
interests of the general cold fusion community.
But the two of you ought be finally honest about it.
You ought reconsider the excellent work of Dr. Shoulders and others.
Hope that helps clarify this subject that Jed Rothwell brought up
with his false assertions about our efforts in this field.
Best wishes.
Dr. Mitchell Swartz
