>From Mark,
>>> And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... >> Peter's fault? Whatever... > I was joking. Of course it wasn't his "fault" ... > this may not be the place for levity. Vortex-l often displays levity. Some enjoy it. Some don't, particularly those who may feel levity had been executed at their expense. ;-) However, it was not clear to me when you were joking and when you weren't. Which begs the question, when should one take what you write (or post) seriously and when shouldn't one? >>> "When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device." >> A demonstrably "practical device", sure, yeah, I get that. I suspect >> everyone on this list gets that. But A "demonstrable testable theory"? > Nope. I wrote "a testable theory" ... you even quoted me! My apologies. You most certainly did not use the word "demonstrably" with the phrase "testable theory". >From SVJ: >> Well, sure, it would be nice to have one of those things lying around in >> the laboratory. But in its absence I sure as hell wouldn't let it stop me >> from trying to put a little jam on my toast. That seems to be what lot of >> people are attempting to do these days. Obviously one of those individuals >> includes the highly controversial Italian, Rossi. Is Rossi and his little >> dog-and-pony show for real? I don't know. Hopefully, we'll know the answer >> to that soon. > You miss my point ... it was "or" not "and." Either would be the answer > to Peter's question. At least that what I was suggesting. I believe I did get your point. You said "or". I even quoted you're "or"! However, I can see how one might interpret my comment as meaning both. It wasn't. The point I was trying to get across was that a "testable theory" is not likely to be anywhere near as much of a game changer as having a "demonstrably practical device" on hand. > I give up. It seems you and Jed are committed to being right about > the argument you want to have. I don't speak for Mr. Rothwell, and I know Mr. Rothwell certainly doesn't speak for me. We certainly aren't in collusion with each other. Quite frankly, you sound a tad harassed to me. in my opinion. Granted, my intentions were to deliberately put you on the spot. On that point I appear to have succeeded, however briefly it might have been. My final objective was to point out what I personally perceived to be certain level of emotionally charged defensiveness on your part. I also wanted to point out that IMHO, you might on occasion be putting the cart before the horse in regards to what is likely to be more of a game changer in the highly contentious LENR field. IMO, a "demonstrably practical device" is where the real jam lies. A "testable theory" often seems to come later. much later. PS: Writing does not come easy for me. As a recovering part-time dyslexic I occasionally make mistakes and misinterpretations - especially when I feel pressed for time. (And spell-check is a double-edged sword.) Par for the course. The LENR field needs good writers who can help point out to the general public what the real obstacles are and what needs to be done in order to overcome them. It remains my hope, as I'm sure it is to most on this list, that you will continue to do your best. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
