2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> > Others have registered their skepticism, and I don’t chastise them because > they don’t do it hundreds of times a month! > A tiny bit of hyperbole perhaps? I respond to others so I only do "it" a hundred times a month if they do "it" the same or more. But you don't object to them is my point.
> Vortex-l is not a website where people only visit once, read the comments > and get some impression, never likely to return. Nearly all the > contributors read this forum daily, and are therefore well aware of the > HISTORY of people’s opinions. Thus, there is no need to continually state > your own; or correct what YOU PERCEIVE as the wrong conclusions. > Then there is also no need to restate the alleged and erroneous problems with the patenting process, there is no need to restate Rossi's ridiculous claims over and over, and since everyone can read his misnamed blog, there is no need to parrot every grandiose claim he writes on it, is there? But you never seem to complain about THAT. You only complain when I RESPOND to it. That's what I find very strange and grossly inappropriate, not to mention the *ad hominem* attacks. > Do not treat this forum as you would the comment section of some website; > it is primarily for technical discussions. I asked once before, how many > of your 750+ postings in only three months have any significant technical > content? Any calculations? I’m not about to go back and count, but in the > postings of yours that I have read, I don’t remember ANY calculations. > My math prowess stopped at intermediate calculus, intermediate statistics and introduction to vector analysis. And I've forgotten a lot of it. Most of the traffic here that I respond to has nothing to do with calculations. When it does, I do my best. For example, I connected up David R. with an individual who performed a detailed mathematical simulation of Rossi's October 6 experiment which suggests that the results were wrongly interpreted. Initially, I helped the person with translating the discussion to more conventional English and I relayed both sides to the email list. Eventually, that got tiring so I succeeded in connecting them up privately and anonymously. David said he would forward the results of those ongoing discussions when they are available. Not everyone who can contribute has to be a math genius such as you consider yourself to be. Contributions can also be made in many other ways. I follow quite a bit of the math-- but I readily admit that computer modeling and complex calculations of heat transfer and fluid flow particulars are not my forte though I do understand the basic principles involved and can perform the simpler ones. Others conduct discussions of the non-mathematical aspects of Rossi and Defkalion extensively here. You only seem to find my input objectionable. It's opposed to credulous belief in Rossi and Defkalion claims. Strange you limit your objections to that.
