I tell ya what, Lennart. Because I am so magnanimous in spirit and to demonstrate that I have "grown out of the sandbox", I will give you the last word. Have at it.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > Kevin I hope you will grow out of the sandbox one day. > On Aug 11, 2014 11:57 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I do not know that I intended to provoke. >>> >> ***Weasel words from a weasel. You know your own intention, but here you >> say "you do not know". It is your OWN intention, of COURSE you know. But >> someone from a "strategic leadership" background and thin skin and a record >> right here on this thread is compelled to write like you do. Weasel. >> >> >> >> >>> I do have a technical question about howmany states there are >>> (unanswered). >>> >> ***What a bunch of horse manure, in light of your previous response. >> Geez, why don't you just give it up? >> >> >> >>> How you mix that with the name of my business I cannot understand. >>> >> ***Yup. I know you don't understand. And I know you cannot understand. >> That's why you write in such a ridiculous manner. Perhaps some day you >> will make some positive contribution to Vortex, one can only hope. >> >> >> >>> Even more do I think your unqualified, wrongful and mean evaluation of >>> my person is insulting and uncalled for. >>> >> ***Like I said before, if you don't want the alligator to snap at you, >> quit throwing rocks at him. Preschoolers know the wisdom of this. >> Evidently, you are not smarter than a preschooler. >> >> >> >>> I have told you to contact me privately if you have a grudge to settle >>> >> ***I have no grudge to settle. Perhaps some day you will learn to be a >> "strategic leader". But I doubt it. >> >> >> >>> . I do not think that being the case you just enjoy being judgemental. >>> >> ***You're so full of bowlsheeite. You've engaged in judgementalism since >> your first post on this thread, and throughout. You just like to hide >> behind weasel terms so that no one will call you out. Once they do, we all >> see what an incredible weasel punk you are. Why did you start your >> interactions with invective if you didn't want invective to ensue? Because >> you are a weasel, that's why. >> >> >>> I.suggest you stick to the issues instead of dabble in evalutions you >>> have neither qualifications nor informations to do. >>> >> ***And I suggest you go back to "strategic followership"... oops, that's >> supposed to be strategic leadership, but with your approach there is no >> discernible difference. >> >> >> >>> On Aug 10, 2014 7:56 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Lennart: >>>> >>>> Why don't you just leave me alone? You started out on this thread >>>> intending to provoke, so you've achieved provocation. Now that you don't >>>> like the result you wanna backtrack. I get it. So then back track. Get >>>> lost. Go and teach someone about your supposed "strategic leadership" >>>> which is neither strategic nor leadership. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other. >>>>> I cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself >>>>> holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any >>>>> hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure >>>>> you >>>>> that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep >>>>> whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally >>>>> think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in >>>>> the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about >>>>> your problems whatever they are. >>>>> On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I know enough about your life that you need to get one. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros < >>>>>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice >>>>>>> is the sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an >>>>>>> analtyical engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded >>>>>>> arguments. If that is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> give you the ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have >>>>>>> not figured out how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> educated by your floskel. >>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Get a life, Lennart >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros < >>>>>>>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox >>>>>>>>> logics. I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . >>>>>>>>> .". >>>>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop >>>>>>>>>> throwing rocks at him. Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros < >>>>>>>>>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. >>>>>>>>>>> Inhave not asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still >>>>>>>>>>> you think >>>>>>>>>>> you can make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any >>>>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>>>> vendetta. I admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the >>>>>>>>>>> beginning an engineer as well. >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros < >>>>>>>>>>>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about >>>>>>>>>>>>> management/leadership. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We had a talk about my subject not long ago. It did not go >>>>>>>>>>>>> very well. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a >>>>>>>>>>>> solid argument together and are basically a follower not a leader. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reason I try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who >>>>>>>>>>>>> told me >>>>>>>>>>>>> that state of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is an >>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of states. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style: You >>>>>>>>>>>> follow a crowd. Not only that but you did not understand the >>>>>>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>>>>> contention. So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>> barking in the first place. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any >>>>>>>>>>>>> new states. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ***Your friends are not correct. You THINK we are looking for >>>>>>>>>>>> new states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what >>>>>>>>>>>> has been >>>>>>>>>>>> agreed in science. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an >>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of >>>>>>>>>>>>> more hard to describe/understand states is required. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>> Recall my prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it >>>>>>>>>>>> reflects on your "leadership". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole discussion about different theories is way too >>>>>>>>>>>>> adament in my opinion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't worth much. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted >>>>>>>>>>>>> by a wide group of scientists. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of >>>>>>>>>>>> LENR is not accepted by a wide group of scientists. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all >>>>>>>>>>>>> theories would propel the search for a solution forward much >>>>>>>>>>>>> faster than >>>>>>>>>>>>> the attempt to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> theology level.. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ***I didn't say that AT ALL. I don't see how you get that from >>>>>>>>>>>> what I wrote. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR >>>>>>>>>>>> observations. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They might be depending on which state of matter they are >>>>>>>>>>>>> working in. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ***POTO. (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you >>>>>>>>>>>> are saying something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original >>>>>>>>>>>> contention but >>>>>>>>>>>> acting as if you're arguing against it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Axil, Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason one is better? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ***Sounds good to me. But how you got to the point that you >>>>>>>>>>>> somehow thought I was saying something different than this is >>>>>>>>>>>> utterly >>>>>>>>>>>> baffling. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" < >>>>>>>>>>>>> kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are only 4 sates of matter (traditionally): solid, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> liquid, gas, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> plasma. Trying to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> far has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven fruitless, although plasma is a state of matter that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is an arc a plasma? My readings tell me: sometimes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from one of these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Solid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liquid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plasma >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bose-Einstein Condensate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would occur as the newest & least understood state of matter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ….Especially when plasma might be involved, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation occurs in a very special case of Condensed Matter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physics. … Are there other states of matter being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulated at this point? Some of the Zero Point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in mainstream >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be partly or wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that electrons exist partly in another dimension. If we limit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates to macro reality (no subatomic species like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pentaquarks etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then here are a few more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most likely already has such a list, and indeed it can be found >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
