Steven: What I was thinking as I was reading your most eloquent explanation and question to Josh, was not quite so eloquent.
. what a waste of good brain cells. -Mark From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 8:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial My vortex-l posting habits has gone down significantly within the last six months due to the fact that I need to focus on my own personal research as compared to constantly getting ensnared in another "discussion" thread. (Vortex-l can be so "addictive"!) Nevertheless, every now and then, something still catches my eye. I noticed that Ed Storms recently asked Joshua: > So, I ask, what is the reason behind this lengthly > critique of what Peter says? To which Joshua replied: > It's caught my interest. Other people become experts at > video games; I've gotten similarly addicted to cold fusion > debunking. Joshua, this recreational "hobby" of yours - someone who appears to have become "addicted" to cold fusion debunking... The short reply would be to suggest that there are recovery programs that can help such addicts overcome these kinds of afflictions. But here's a more detailed response: I'm certainly not suggesting that in your case "recovery" might imply that you would suddenly find yourself becoming more accepting of some little-understood LENR / CANR reactions that certain researchers have concluded may be occurring in Nature. Far from it. What I am, however, trying to suggest is that if you believe this "addictive" hobby of yours is altruistic because as a science apologist you are attempting to defend the true objective principals of scientific investigation, I would suggest you might want to consider pursuing a different hobby. Instead of relentlessly performing in the role of an "armchair debunker" why not consider focusing your apparent boundless energy on some really worthy hobbies like pursuing actual laboratory work on a subject that fascinates you, or your own or theoretical research. Or have you done this already? If so, please point us to some of your work. I suspect many on this list might be interested in looking into your accomplishments. As a matter of disclosure, while some on this list may think of me as nothing more than an astronomical artist, one of my other personal "hobbies", a hobby I have pursued since the mid 1980s has been theoretical research into the nature of celestial mechanics and the various algorithms and formulas used to generate orbital paths. I have pursued this rather obscure branch of study because of my own unique collection of personal predilections. Personal quirks or not, it is my hope that my personal research may eventually end up making a useful contribution to the knowledge base of humankind, but who really knows. I have on occasion hinted at some of the observations I've stumbled across OFTEN BY ACCIDENT I might add, as occasionally described within Vortex-l list over the past decade. Nevertheless, I must confess the fact that I don't yet know if what I seem to have stumbled across will actually turn out to be beneficial to society, or not. Hopefully, I'm getting closer to actually publishing something useful and informative. However, publication is still a year or so away - at best. In the end, it's all a gamble. It is nevertheless a personal risk of mine I'm willing to take with my own limited life span. So, I ask you, Josh. What risks are you willing to take... take with your own limited life span? I would suggest focusing your energies on pursuing a hobby of armchair debunking the laboratory research of "cold fusion" researchers is not likely to make all that much of a useful contribution to society, considering the extremely limited lifespan we all have to contend with on this planet. Why not make your life span count for something? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
