In Allan's case he performed no crime other than simply reporting on the > alleged Obama event. IMHO, Allan showed professionalism by NOT adding his > own personal thoughts and personal beliefs on the matter. >
So let's see. If I send a report to Allan about my pink, invisible, flying unicorns that eat nickel and fart hydrogen he should report that too? I disagree. I think a journalist must use judgement in choosing what to report. That's done by considering both the source and the content and by checking and crosschecking the information if it seems wobbly. Most people don't want to waste time and energy reading fanciful and unlikely garbage, It's not necessary to report on Obama's trip to Mars, is it? Really? Or shall I write an article for Vortex about his next trip -- to Jupiter and Uranus? Allan's more serious problem is that he supports obvious and less obvious scams and he actively solicits money for them by asking people to contribute. That's unconscionable. I can give examples if you like but I'd rather not waste more space. Allan and Hank Mills are only by the most incredibly generous stretch of definition "journalists". They're more like people who write perpetual nonsense on a lame, ugly web site. Ask Allan which of his free energy schemes and weird engines worked in all the time he's been publishing his blog. Answer: ZERO. NONE. Zip. Meanwhile, Krivit seems incapable of NOT introducing his own personal > beliefs into the Rossi affair. WHO is behaving more professionally here? In > any case, Allan should not be publicly ridiculed for doing nothing more > than reporting the alleged event. > Krivit seems to have good contacts who are willing to talk to him, including some at the U of Bologna and U of Uppsala and many scientists who work in cold fusion and LENR. I think what he writes is interesting even if it isn't always particularly polite. > Let me try to end this personal rant of mine (painstakingly performed on > an ipad without spellchecker on) by stressing the fact that BELIEF has > nothing to do with the issues here. However, Krivit is exploiting what > Allan reported. krivit is attempting to insinuate to readers that what > Allan reported is by default what Allan must believes, and therefore by > deliberate innuendo destroy, Allan's professional reputation as a reporter. > Far as I know, Allan (and Hank Mills) has no reputation whatever as a reporter or as a journalist. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. Krivit knows this is exactly the kind of innuendo that many skeptics love > to wallow in - and subsequently parrot. It was a deliberate calculated > attempt on Krivit's part to get others (particularly skeptics) to do his > dirty work for him. This is the exact same dispicable behavior i witnessed > from Kriviypt when he went on a radio interview to indirecly insinuate that > certain CF researchers had deliberately manipulated their experimental > results. It also got me removed from Krivit's NET BoD when I complained to > him about what it exactly was that he did. Krivit is showing that he wants > to get OTHERS to say the dirty things for him, and by doing so, add the > illusion of additional authenticity to his personal beliefs. By resorting > to these kinds of seedy tactics Krivit is burning his bridges faster than > what is healthy for any "reporter" to undertake. > I have no idea what you're talking about-- maybe someone else here knows. So far, some of the more interesting material about Rossi has come from Krivit who took the trouble to fly to Bologna and whom for his time and trouble, was treated to a large helping of what seems to have been entirely baloney.
