On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Axil being anonymous is to me a major problem and a good reason why > people should treat his theories with skepticism. > ***Skepticism is good. Where are your theories we can treat with such skepticism. How do we establish YOUR bona fides? > > Why? simply because Axil does not loose anything if his outrageous > theories are exposed. > ***He "looses" status here on Vortex. Just like you would if you proposed a theory or two that were quickly invalidated. > Normally, a person proposing a theory would have his reputation invested > with the success of his theory. A person that is known would be careful in > proposing theories he knows will not stand the test of science lest his > credibility be smeared. > ***Keep in mind that you're asking quite a few Vorts to step out of anonymity. And even then, how do we know they are who they say they are? > > This is not the case with Axil. And to me, that is a problem. > ***Why don't you just evaluate his theories on their own friggin merits? > Axil could be proposing useless "rabbit hole" ideas which would cause > people to go down the wrong trail and waste time and resources and effort. > ***We've seen that. Even recently. There's a recent poster who simply gets ignored as far as I can tell. > All this wasted effort does not affect Axil personally, hence he is not at > all motivated to be circumspect in his speculations. That is a danger. > ***Methinks the lady doth protest too much. > A famous LENR researcher once opined to me in a private email how he too > would like to know who Axil really is. > ***Private email, huh? Sounds suspiciously like the kind of anonymity you are railing against right here and now. > He was expressing the same concern as I am now; especially in the face of > growing popularity of Axil's speculations. > ***And if Axil is a buffoon he will crash & burn. Where is the harm? > We could all be being lead down a useless rabbit hole. > ***Why are you so concerned? It is no different than other rabbit holes in the past. And perhaps your "famous LENR -private email- LENR researcher" is just Edmund Storms who decided he didn't want to be a part of Vortex-L any more and defend HIS theory. Who gives a flying fart if Axil is just a janitor? He's demonstrated levels of understanding above yours and mine to the point that we cannot even criticize it. Perhaps the same is true of your "private email famous LENR dude". > > Remember Axil's eloquent theoritical explanation of the "propane Flat > plate Heat Exchanger" device by a chinese fellow here in vortex. > ***Nope. Doesn't even ring a bell. > The chinese fellow claimed overunity and Axil followed suit with elaborate > explanations of carbon nanoparticles causing LENR, etc. etc. Well, my > friends, I tried to replicate that setup to no avail. > ***Well, that's impressive. But as we ALL know, failure to replicate does not mean that it CANNOT be replicated. Otherwise none of us would be here discussing P-F results which were so famously "not" replicated. > The excess heat was plain old propane combustion. Sadly, I followed > Axil and was led down a rabbit hole. > ***Bummer for you. Maybe your problem shouldn't be our problem. > I don't blame him, because such is the nature of experimentalism. But, it > seems to me that people should from henceforth be more circumspect in > giving too much credence to the ideas of an anonymous poster. > ***And maybe we should be more circumspect in listening to you as well. You are cutting the line so far out that it excludes perhaps 40 to 50% of Vorts. It is a useless venture. > Most of us, do not have the training or the knowledge to properly vet > Axil's theories before we embark down that path; so it is critical that the > person shares in the glory as well as in the failure of his ideas. Being > anonymous does not allow that. > ***Interesting. But such a proposal belongs on an elitist group of researchers such as whichever one that Ed Storms eventually migrated to. I suspect it wouldn't take me more than 20 minutes to figure out who Axil is, so he/she ain't all that anonymous. > > I hope people can see why it is important for people to stake their > reputation together with their theory, like Ed has done. > ***And then Ed promptly left this forum. Perhaps your meandering musings are better suited for whatever forum Ed migrated to. > And for that, I admire him greatly irregardless of whether his theory pans > out or not. > ***I don't care whose theory pans out, as long as one does. Hero worship is unflattering. You might want to wait until his theory is validated before you continue to go down this path. > > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Ron Kita <chiralex.k...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 4:44 AM > *Subject:* [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma > > Greetings Vortex, > > Not sure how many Vortex folks googled: Axil s email:JANAP128...hmmmmmm. > > Axil is an enigma. Kudos to him. > > I am a Villanova economist...not spoiled by Einstein dogma...and > Scientific Theory. > Grins, > Ron Kita,Chiralex > Doylestown PA.....a close friend of the late Gene Mallove. > My other friend, Boyd Bushman, ex- Lockheed: Follow the data- theory be > damned. > >
