Bill, There are many new-comers to the Collective due to vortex-l being mentioned on one or more of the websites covering the whole Rossi/E-Cat fiasco... and because of that, there have been numerous requests for references, which of course Vorts, and mostly Jed, have kindly provided links. So the idiotic excuse that Mary uses to avoid reducing her ignorance level is suspicious to say the least... links have been provided... she's just too lazy, or purposely ignoring them. Perhaps she could use the excuse that there just are so many postings to read thru... but wait, SHE is the reason for that. She is by far the queen of useless postings (now a total of 907 since only 11/10/2011, only two months!)... to say 'prolific' is an understatement, unfortunately she is prolifically repetitious.
You also need to look at Shaun and Eff's postings... Thanks for looking into this and hopefully restoring some rational discussion and a strong signal to the Collective... -Mark -----Original Message----- From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 1:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Opponents should please go away and form your own group On Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Mary Yugo wrote: > It is absolutely inane to ask critics to "read the literature". You think > we have nothing better to do than to spend time with unlimited > quantities of inadequate and difficult to understand papers? Certainty that LENR critics should be ignorant of LENR evidence? Hm. And applying negative labels to papers never read, in order to excuse any need to read them? That's really insane. That's "flamer crap," a totally blatant symptom of irrational, emotion-based pseudoscience generally called "pathological skepticism" or "pseudo-skepticism." Rational, scientific people don't do that stuff, even by mistake. > It's your job as > proponent of this technology to choose the few papers, in any exist, > maybe two or three best ones, for us to read. No, it's the critic's job to know the topic before judging. It's the basic method of science: judging *after* inspecting evidence, thus avoiding emotional bias leading to data selection error. Really, this is like finding an odd restaurant critic who believes that going to numerous restaurants is Just Not Done, and that all restaurants should deliver food to the restaurant reviewer's office. This attitude is a huge red-flag for the pretend-scientist... to already have judged (perhaps based only on concensus-following, not on personal study?) then to find "perfectly sensible" reasons to not read read on the topic they're judging. Very tricky. > It should be papers that show at > least a watt of CLEARLY and PROPERLY measured excess heat with no > infusion of fresh fuel, running vastly longer -- orders of magnitude > longer -- than a chemical reaction or stored heat could provide. And you leap to the conclusion that no such papers exist? Amazing. > THAT is what Rossi > failed to do. THAT is what you have failed to point us to. And it's your > job as the proponent to do the pointing. It is not our job to go > rummaging through all the "stuff". This above, this is the stereotyped attack of the Scoffer/flamer/troll. It's what they always try, over numerous instances starting back in 1989 on Compuserve. Giving such people some research papers (or pointing out books and reference articles) falls right into the dishonest rhetorical trap they've prepared for their victim. Don't do it. Their request for papers is fake. It's Trolling, it's a 'politician' ploy. Think a moment: a rational critic of LENR would already know the field; at the very least have read the pro/con books, found reading lists, reviewed recommended papers, etc. A troll instead twists the debate around, attacking with utter confidence based on their own false certainty, then blaming the victim of the attack for not having done the critic's background work for them. And if the victim refuses to fall for it, they can say "See, they wouldn't send me those papers!" Making a victim of your attack look bad? And convincing onlookers that the attacker is the wronged party? That's an elegant ploy taken right from the con-artist list; from the political arena, and is quite disgusting from the standpoint of the extreme honesty required throughout science. And when done habitually, skillfully, it's a huge flashing sign saying "THIS IS A TROLL." Sometimes an intellectually honest, sharp person will make an occasional slip into very twisted dishonesty. This above does not resemble such a case. > > You have no idea how many papers describe the results you say have > > never been published. Anyone who has read the literature can see > > that you are wrong. > > Really? You think it's some sort of universal stupidity or pernicious > viciousness that prevents the majority of nuclear scientists and > physicists No, they use exactly the same excuses that you're using right now. That's how these community-wide false concensuses always arise. I decide to sneer at Goddard only because everyone else is sneering at Goddard, and of course That Many Scientists Cannot Be Mistaken. Scientific American totally refuses to send any reporters to Huffman Prarie to view the Wright Flyer, saying it's because other newspapers haven't already sent reporters. The balanced razor blade falls in one direct5ion, and the research community insists that an enormous force must have pushed it that way, so their thoughtless judgement must be correct. > from believing that robust energy production has been achieved with LENR? > That would be simple paranoia. Accusing the victims of 'suppression of intellectual dissent' of paranoia? That one's right out of my symptoms-list of the Pseudoskeptic. OK, I'm convinced. Mary Yugo, you're seem to be the very prototype of the emotion-based pseudoscientist. Blocking you from fringe science forums is the reason Vortex-L exists in the first place. PS The fake name, that *really* is a signifier of the common Troll. (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
