Steven: I share most of your thoughts on Krivit as well... I've had a fair amount of interaction w/SK due to reviewing articles and general debates/discussions with him, and he has always been open-minded about suggestions, and even made some corrections or taken advice on difficult political/legal/editorial issues. He takes the "Rules of Good Journalism" VERY seriously because he is trying to establish himself as a serious 'journalist', and has to build his reputation. It's clear that he has come a long way toward that end since large publishers are using him as a resource to put together major publications for them... they would NOT rely on someone for such projects if they didn't feel they were capable, competent and objective.
Some on this list made a major issue out of the fact that he misread a decimal point/exponent change by a LENR researcher, and as soon as it was brought to his attention, he corrected the record. As far as I was concerned, there were more important issues being discussed in that exchange... Please, let's not dig up and beat that dead horse! My point here is that when his factual errors are pointed out, he will correct the record. Not sure how to respond to your comments about his gravitating toward the 'underdogs'... I've kind of felt that at times too. In today's world, that might be a good thing because the OBJECTIVE BEST path, even is science, is not always the one taken by the establishment -- the more money at stake, the less likely decisions will be objective. I can tell you that Rusi Taleyarkhan (BubbleGate) is VERY thankful for the tremendous effort SK did in uncovering the facts and reporting them in several extensive reports. Steve brought to bear considerable pressure, and turned up the heat a notch or three, on Purdue and the Navy; had SK not done this, Taleyarkhan would have NO career left. Even after the considerable attention that SK brought to Rusi's battle, it still is only a footnote in science history... Purdue would have completely trashed Rusi's career to save their asses. Like it or not, this is how the game is played these days. One mistake people used to make with Steve, is that they thought he took over as the 'cheerleader' for CF/LENR when Gene Mallove was murdered. NOT the case! Gene was the cheerleader; the torch-bearer. That is NOT what Steve wanted, or wants, to do; his focus is on 'investigative reporting', and one cannot do that and be a 'cheerleader'. My only comment about SK's Italy visit and demo... The problem I have with that whole fiasco is that Steve reported it as if it were meant to be an improvement over previous tests, when I seriously doubt that that was what Rossi had in mind, and not what he agreed to. Did Steve make it perfectly clear to Rossi that he was looking for, and would report on, clarifications to problems with previous tests? Only he knows. With all the feedback that SK got from numerous people about the failings and problems with the previous E-Cat tests, I think he went there expecting a more rigorous and definitive test, but what he got was a very simple, grade-school or layman's demonstration (NOT TEST) of how the technology is connected up, started, run and shut down. He went there as if it was a TEST, but received a DEMO; big difference. So the customer was expecting one thing, but received something totally different... no surprise that he came to the conclusions that he did. -Mark
