Michel, you seem to miss the point to this discussion. The LENR website
is whatever Jed wants it to be. We started the site and Jed operates it
without pay for the benefit of the field. In addition, he applies the
highest standards to this operation. Yet, when Swartz raise the issue of
censorship based on his own inability to communicate, this is accepted
as a plausible complaint. At any time Swartz could make his papers
available either on LENR by meeting our standards or on his own site.
This is not a two-sided issue. On the one side are two people who are
working hard to advance knowledge about cold fusion and on the other
side is someone who complains about an issue he could easily correct,
all the while insulting Jed and I by his insinuation.
Ed
Michel Jullian wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to
this comment)
Michel Jullian wrote:
Jed wrote:
There are none in dispute. We will accept any or all.
You are hereby sentenced to add "in the form of his choice", because readers
don't give a damn about the format in which they can access a previously unavailable
resource . . .
That is incorrect. Readers care a lot about format, and even more about
presentation quality. I know a lot more about this subject than you do. I have
distributed 800,000 previously unavailable papers about cold fusion, so I know
what readers want. Messy, low-quality papers at LENR-CANR attract very few
readers, whereas good papers are downloaded thousands of times a year. If you
upload fax-machine quality low-res scanned images of a paper, with sideways,
blacked-out overexposed figures and spelling mistakes, you will be lucky if 5
people a week read it. Convert that same paper to a proper format and if the
content is any good, hundreds of people will download it every week.
I enumerated the reasons why I think this standard is best. If you see a
technical problem on that list of reasons, let's hear it. Otherwise, don't tell
me how to do my job. I have been publishing technical information for decades,
and I do not take kindly to amateur kvetching.
Jed, your standard is indeed best for online publishing, this kvetching amateur
doesn't deny this. But please clarify: is LENR.org a publishing house or a
library? If it is an online library as advertised, I respectfully submit that
its role is not to edit/improve the original work, especially not against the
will of its author. As a professional technical information publisher but, as
you will certainly agree, an amateur librarian, you could take example on
Google Books, or Amazon Look/Search Inside, who provide high quality scanned
images of the original works, see e.g.
http://books.google.com/books?id=O5f3L2GfXBQC&hl=en ("Relativity: the special and
the general theory" By Albert Einstein)
and try the search function, you'll see it is quite usable. Would you agree to a searchable image
pdf format of this kind of quality? Would Mitchell? Of course you realize that apart from its
technical merits (quality/fidelity/searchability), this format has the additional advantage of
being a neutral ground where you and Mitchell could meet without any of you "winning" or
"losing" this regrettable dispute.
Just my 2 cents
Michel
