>From Damon:
> I understand you passed along some information from an > insider at Levi's second experiment and sent it to along > to be included in an article here: > http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm > > Some folks saying you skewed the data. I'm not saying you > did. And I'm not saying you didn't. > > It's just hard to tell one way or the other. > > If you still have this data in some physical form you > could scan or reproduce, it would go a long way in > clearing this up. "Some folks saying..." There is another angle to this inquiry of yours. It seems to me that your post implies that Jed is skewing the reporting of the facts as he perceives those facts, but you're trying to give the impression to everyone that you are being impartial. It also seems to me that you are trying to put Jed on the defensive. A baiting tactic. I remember someone who recently gave a radio interview where the interviewer titled his broadcast with a specific phrase that certain CF researchers had "lied" about their data. When the interviewer got around to asking his guest about this accusation the interviewee replied that he personally did not say that certain CF researchers had lied, but then he followed up with the comment that listeners should draw their own conclusion. I remember talking to a lawyer about that conversation because the interviewee's response had deeply disturbed me. I wanted the lawyer's professional opinion on what had transpired. Have you heard of the term "weasel worded?" IMHO, it would have been more honorable if you had simply stated your current personal opinion on the matter and then ask for clarification - because you realize the possibility that you might have come to an incorrect conclusion. Of course, I'm assuming you do occasionally consider the possibility that you might be wrong. But then I could be wrong on that matter. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
