Interesting. As a total outsider, of course I'm in no position to
confirm any of this, but it makes more sense than anything else I've
heard or seen written about this strange situation.
Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as:
>
>> I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why Mr.
>> Rothwell wasn't able to "read/scan" what I presume were hardcopy
>> documents allegedly given to him by Dr. Swartz at a prior encounter.
>> Presumably such "hardcopy" could have been scanned. . . .
>
> Actually, he sent a CD-ROM which I could not read. Later I got
> electronic copies of all ICCF-10 papers from Peter Hagelstein. I have
> printed copies of Swartz's papers in books, and I could always scan them.
>
> However, this has nothing to do with our dispute. You have to understand
> that Swartz uses this and other forums to ran an extortion and
> intimidation racket. He has been doing this for years. He tried to nail
> me twice, and he nailed some other people who contacted me. I don't know
> if this is a hobby or a business. You can see half of his scheme in the
> messages he posted here. It works like this:
>
> 1. He goads the mark, as he has done here with me. Or he makes nice.
> ("Mark" means the victim; the target.) The goal is to get the mark post
> some text from one of Swartz's papers, the way I posted his Abstract
> here. Or to upload the entire paper to a web site, or to print it. When
> he runs the "make nice" version he may hint it is okay to quote him but
> he never gives explicit permission.
>
> 2. As soon as the text is posted or published he send e-mails and
> snail-mail letters to the mark threatening a lawsuit for copyright
> violations and for "stealing ideas" or what have you.
>
> 3. The mark apologizes and settles out of court. Either he pays up or he
> agrees never to say anything bad about Swartz again.
>
> He did this to me twice. The first time I thought it was a joke. The
> second time I wised up. I erased all electronic messages and manuscripts
> from him, and threw away all printed matter. There is not one file or
> scrap of paper in my office from him. I am thinking of deleting all of
> his papers from the LENR-CANR index, just to be safe.
>
> Mallove and others urged me to keep quiet about it, which I would do,
> but from his recent messages I sense he is still out there running his
> little game, probably looking for new marks. So I suggest you beware of
> quoting any of his papers or uploading them. I wouldn't even discuss his
> work. You are asking for trouble. I am surely asking for trouble
> revealing this, but I do not respond well to intimidation.
>
> I would upload his papers in the conditions I set, because as you see
> they preclude a lawsuit. Hundreds of people would see that he gave me
> permission! Obviously there is no chance he will upload his own work to
> his own website, or allow anyone to copy it, because that would wreck
> his scheme.
>
> Several researchers have denied permission to upload papers. Of course
> that is their right and I have no objection. Some are hostile toward
> LENR-CANR and have taken steps to stop others from contributing to it,
> or spread false rumors about it. Of course many skeptics despise it. The
> ones at Wikipedia made it impossible to add a link to LENR-CANR anywhere
> in the English Wikipedia, and one of them (an American who reads no
> Japanese) tried to do the same thing in the Japanese edition. So I have
> many enemies who cause mischief. But Swartz is the only one who has
> tried to use LENR-CANR to extort money from me!
>
> - Jed
>
