At 12:05 PM 6/19/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Akira Shirakawa
<shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the "snake"
Anyone have any idea what he means here? I do not recall a diagram.
Is he speaking of a water phase graph?
You need a program, with notes.
Supposedly Krivit showed Levi some diagram. This is totally
irrelevant, it's Levi and Rossi blowing smoke. Suppose that Krivit
showed Levi some diagram, does it matter? My recollection is that
Krivit got the diagram from a textbook, but this gets so bloody contorted....
The point is that steam quality is very important. That is all that
any diagram could establish. And it's simply true, with or without a
diagram. Krivit may simply have been trying to bolser his argument,
and, my guess, Krivit shouldn't have done that. With my twenty-twenty
hindsight.
(As a journalist, Krivit should rigorously avoid giving his own
arguments. He might present an argument from someone else, i.e.,
"So-and-so has claimed that blah-blah, what can you tell me about
this?" And then make sure that the answer is clear to him.
(If it's not clear to him, then, he'd explain that he doesn't
understand how this response answers the question, and if he's
puzzled, so too might his readers be. A journalist should rigorously
avoid, in the investigative process, taking a position. My own
opinion is that this neutrality should extend to reported conclusions
as well, though a reporter, in some environments, may state a
personal conclusion, the problem comes when this starts to affect how
the issues are reported. Strictly speaking, a neutral reporter does
not report personal conclusions at all, any conclusions are attributed.)
A neutral report, with proper attribution, will hardly ever be wrong
in the judgment of history. Errors arise in conclusions.
Personally, I think that Krivit's done a decent job, here, though his
last report worries me a little, he's suggesting that conclusions may
be drawn from his personal experience, when, in fact, all that the
personal experience shows is that Rossi did not want to cooperate
with him. As we have seen from Jed Rothwell, it was the same with
Jed, but Jed had tried to establish the ground rules first, Krivit
seems to have just showed up.... more or less.
Krivit, as someone with established views on LENR, would not seem
like an ordinary reporter. It seems astonishing to me that Rossi
would not already be aware of who Steve Krivit is, but it's possible
he didn't. Then Rossi gets this report from his VERY GOOD
investigator, who may have simply googled Krivit and came up with the
obvious, but who jumped to conclusions without anything like VERY
GOOD investigation.
If we assume that Rossi is honest and straightforward, we are left
with some serious contradictions, so, my operating conclusion,
confirmed by this -- and not really contradicted by Rossi himself --
is that Rossi is not "honest and straightforward," which really ought
to be a no-brainer.
Rossi is concealing stuff, but he has a habit of opening his mouth,
which is going to lead to some contradictions! Apparently, there is
an English phrase he never learned: "No comment." I think that in
business school, they have people write this a thousand times on the
chalkboard, so that it will be ready at hand and reflexively used
until the person has strong reason to actually make a comment.....
