A New Cold Fusion Report Out of Russia

JohnnyCJohnny · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

Richard Schultz wrote:

. · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 108

'jimmy' wrote:
"Repeat a false rumor about someone and you end up on the short end of a
lawsuit or maybe even jail."

An incorrect statement for many, many judical systems. If it were, you, in
the same post, exposed yourself to 'end up on the short end of a lawsuit or
maybe even jail.' Let's keep it civil, no matter what the frustration you
feel (which I also feel.)

Phil Weldon

"jimmy" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:evo291t1hlbd9lqefnckkkv4jubs53erch@4ax.com...

Richard Schultz · science forum Guru Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 339

In article <1116862689.754520.108220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote:

: No. Posting relevant stories and results regarding cold fusion to a ng
: dedicated to cold fusion is hardly the definition of an Internet troll.

You claimed that you post to "stir the pot" without regard to whether
or not what you post is true. That's pretty much the definition of a troll.

: I respect you as a scientist Dr. Schultz, but you do have a pointed
: personality. No need to be nasty.

Which he then follows with a personal insult. . .

: I do have to wonder why people who
: think cold fusion doesn't exist, bother participating in such a ng
: dedicated to the same topic? I mean, we all know your point of view
: very well regarding CF. It seems to me as if you have a personal stake
: in seeing cold fusion never succeed?!?

I think that you've been imbibing just a bit too freely on those mind-altering
substances again.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1oz.43q@world.std.com>

JohnnyCJohnny · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

Richard Schultz wrote:

Richard Schultz · science forum Guru Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 339

In article <1116870040.696145.263650@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote:

: It seems like your behavior fits the troll
: definition much better, as we already know very well what your opinion
: of cold fusion is, yet you never seem to miss an opportunity to remind us.

A troll is someone who deliberately posts provocative statements for the
sole purpose of provoking a reaction. That is your self-defined purpose
for posting here. My purpose for posting here is quite different, as I
think anyone who reads my posts can tell.

:> : I respect you as a scientist Dr. Schultz, but you do have a pointed
:> : personality. No need to be nasty.

:> Which he then follows with a personal insult. . .

: Describing one's demeanor is hardly an insult.

"Follows" implies that the insult occurs *after* the quoted sentence.
I assume that you'll agree that those people who come to the conclusion
that your mental facilities are not of the highest caliber are not insulting
you when they call you and idiot.

:> : It seems to me as if you have a personal stake
:> : in seeing cold fusion never succeed?!?

That is the personal insult -- the assumption that I am stating my
opinions not because I have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion,
but because I have a personal stake in the outcome. Which I obviously do not.

:> I think that you've been imbibing just a bit too freely on those
:> mind-altering substances again.

: Well, then why are you here talking about (in your mind) a non-existent
: phenomenon? What is your obsession with the non-existent? Are you
: just bored?

It has been estimated that the ratio of participants to lurkers in most
newsgroups is on the order of 1:10. If people like you and your predecessors
(Steve LaJoie, Jed Rothwell, Mitchell Swartz, etc. etc.) were the only ones
posting here, some of those lurkers might be misled into thinking that
there was something to cold fusion. And who knows, someday even you might
learn something about the scientific method.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

Richard Schultz · science forum Guru Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 339

In article <1116876844.019613.320060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote:
: Richard Schultz wrote:

:> A troll is someone who deliberately posts provocative statements for
:> the sole purpose of provoking a reaction. That is your self-defined
:> purpose for posting here.

: Hmmm, isn't that what you often do "posts provocative statements for
: the sole purpose of provoking a reaction".

No, that is not what I do, although it hardly fails to surprise me that
you didn't notice that.

: A new cold fusion result or
: article is posted to this ng, the one place on the USENET where it
: should be posted for anyone interested in knowing the latest
: developments in cold fusion, and shortly afterwards, you're posting
: some sort of negative comment, often insulting either the poster or the
: writer of the article. That is a form of trolling.

Responding to an experimental report by pointing out its deficiencies
is not "trolling." It is part of the normal scientific process. Pointing
out that someone does not know what he is talking about will not
necessarily make the recipient of that news happy, but it is not trolling.

: Anyone who follows this ng knows how you feel about cold fusion.

You apparently do not.

: Stiring the pot by providing relevant information about cold fusion is
: not necessarily trying to be provactive, it's called being informative.

It's not being informative if what you post is not true, and it is not
being informative if you claim that something is cold fusion when it is
manifestly not cold fusion. In both cases, the most charitable term for
what you are being is "misleading."

: This ng exists to discuss the latests developments in cold fusion.
: Well, I'm providing the latestest developments for people to discuss.

Aside from it being questionable whether or not you are providing the
latest (or even the latestest) developments, you are also posting material
which has nothing to do with cold fusion.

: I'm doing exactly what this newsgroup was set up for, which I don't see
: how that could be confused with trolling?

You have admitted that you are not "discussing" the results -- you are only
posting. If you have nothing of your own to contribute, then you are
not discussing anything.

: Notice, how many of my article postings turn into long discussions?

That is exactly what the average troll is after, and a clever one (not that
I am making any claim one way or the other about your being clever or not)
can easily create a long thread by posting something sufficiently
inflammatory. Just go over to rec.arts.movies.past-films and look how
effectively the troll who is generally known as "Tony Gaza" is able to
generate long threads.

: As I said, this thread would be nearly dead without someone like me around.

And that would not necessarily be a bad thing.

: What would you have? A bunch of skeptics occasionally chating
: amongst each other. What is the point of that? You seem uncomfortable
: seeing the positive cold fusion view being presented in this ng,
: despite the fact that it was set up to discuss cold fusion.

The reason that the skeptics tend to remain here for longer periods of
time than the TBs is quite simple: when the TBs attempt to post something
scientifically relevant, they get their butts kicked by people who actually
know something about science. It happens every time, and eventually, the
TBs retreat to a place where they can share their opinions with like-minded
individuals without having to worry about those nasty skeptics interfering
with their happiness by pointing out that there is still no uncontrovertable
evidence in favor of the existence of cold fusion (except for muon-catalyzed
fusion, the existence of which is not in doubt).

You also need to understand at some point that if you post something that
is wrong, are corrected, post it again, are corrected again, etc., at some
point, people are going to come to a conclusion about your mental abilities.
To my knowledge, none of the skeptics are "uncomfortable" with cold fusion
being discussed. I am no more uncomfortable with the "positive cold fusion
view" being presented here than I am with the "positive Velikovsky view"
being presented in talk.origins or the "positive Respighi view" being
presented in rec.music.classical. But when someone posts any of these
views, he had better be prepared to defend them against people who have
far stronger arguments on their side.

: Both sides deserve representation; I don't see how you could argue otherwise.
: Sometimes I just don't get your logic.

That is because, I regret to inform you, you seem to have a great deal of
difficulty understanding logical argument in any form.

: If you don't like new information being posted to this ng, why don't you
: find a moderated one that doesn't allow open discussion?

You mean like Vortex?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

JohnnyCJohnny · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

Richard Schultz wrote:

JohnnyCJohnny · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

Kirk Shanahan wrote:

Kirk Shanahan · science forum addict Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 73

"JohnnyCJohnny" <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:1116955234.819855.316660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

{snip}

Richard Schultz · science forum Guru Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 339

In article <1116955234.819855.316660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote:

: You say that wouldn't be a bad thing, but then why
: are you even here in the first place? You are facinated with a
: phenomenon (cold fusion) that you believe doesn't even exist?

You really ought to work on your reading comprehension skills.

: sci.physics.fusion exists to discuss cold fusion. I post stories and
: experimental reports relevant to cold fusion.

You post stories and experimental results that are not even remotely
relevant to cold fusion, and you have made it abundantly clear that you
are not capable of telling whether a given post is relevant to cold
fusion or not. You also post without regard to whether the information
that you post is true or not.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Apparently, you take me for a complete fool."
"Yeah -- more or less."
Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit"

Richard Schultz · science forum Guru Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 339

In article <1116960670.308607.124010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote:

:> > sci.physics.fusion exists to discuss cold fusion.
:>
:> Except the CFers never come here.
:
: Which is a shame. It would be nice to have a robust debate here (but
: not a flaming war).

You should take some time and look over the s.p.f. archives. You will
soon discover that in every "robust debate," the TBs not only lost, but
tended to come away looking like people who were at best severely
misinformed, and at worst like total fools. That might give you a
clue about why they don't post here.

: But, I have noticed that they don't seem to
: respond to people who they aren't familiar with.

As a personal favor to me, could you please consider taking a course
in basic written English? Concentrate on things like "how to use a
spell checker" and "proper use of commas."

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1oz.43q@world.std.com>

Richard Tobin · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 165

In article <1116862689.754520.108220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote:

JohnnyCJohnny · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

Richard Schultz wrote:

Kirk Shanahan · science forum addict Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 73

"JohnnyCJohnny" <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:1116960670.308607.124010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

JohnnyCJohnny · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

Richard Schultz wrote:

Google