Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  
    Posted By: AngusInteresting. Since nobody has actually read all through that stuff (except maybe Trim), who knows what's in there?


    I think that actually reading the posts would be like staring into the face of Medusa.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: DuracellI believe that it is Abd's sense that he is "writing for a larger audience" in every post that leads him towards such waffling, droning verbosity and that prevents him from engaging with the other posters here in a normal conversational style.

    There was considerable irony in his "I learn by writing" statement. As whatever he learns by writing it sure isn't "writing".
  2.  
    Posted By: E-ManThere was considerable irony in his "I learn by writing" statement.


    On the other hand in regards to his posts, "I learn by ignoring."
  3.  
    I read his first sentence and then the last sentence and all the posts around it. I might go back and look for something someone else refers to. It is nice to see someone for you all to argue with. LOL
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013
     
    Far too much of a good thing. I invite Abd to keep it to three paragraphs per post, and leave time for responses between them so we can really get down to the nitty gritty.

    I have the feeling that nobody actually disagrees with him all that much. There's just a general resentment of the implicit arrogance of typing tomes in the expectation somebody else should think it worthwhile to read it all.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013
     
    Posted By: Knuckles OToole
    Posted By: E-ManThere was considerable irony in his "I learn by writing" statement.

    On the other hand in regards to his posts, "I learn by ignoring."

    Posted By: Knuckles OToole
    Posted By: E-ManThere was considerable irony in his "I learn by writing" statement.

    On the other hand in regards to his posts, "I learn by ignoring."

    Hence, no surprise, you remain ignorant.

    If you recognize something as nonsense, and ignore it, you have not learned anything from it, it's obvious. No, what you are doing, Knuckles, is rationalizing the process which keeps you ignorant, by focusing on an imaginary property of others -- "boring."

    I'm working with my eleven-year old girl on that. "School is boring!" No, my daughter, school is what it is, and you are bored because you choose to be. You can choose something else, the possibilities are always there.

    She even made a T-shirt for sale: "Anything is possible." Great, you got that. Now, go out and demonstrate it, test it.
  4.  
    Posted By: AbdIf you recognize something as nonsense, and ignore it, you have not learned anything from it, it's obvious. No, what you are doing, Knuckles, is rationalizing the process which keeps you ignorant, by focusing on an imaginary property of others -- "boring."


    You can add emetic to your soporific.
  5.  
    As we have long ago determined, there are many many more things that are impossible, than are possible. In fact, almost everything is impossible.
    Put your daughter's T-shirt on a paraplegic, toss him into the water, and yell, "SWIM! Anything is possible!!"
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013
     
    Posted By: AngusIt's the same impulse that gets missionaries boiled.
    Missionaries get boiled because they're tasty.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013
     
    Posted By: AngusFar too much of a good thing. I invite Abd to keep it to three paragraphs per post, and leave time for responses between them so we can really get down to the nitty gritty.

    I have the feeling that nobody actually disagrees with him all that much. There's just a general resentment of the implicit arrogance of typing tomes in the expectation somebody else should think it worthwhile to read it all.

    Angus is invited to suck on his ... beer.

    I'm not expecting that anyone here wants to read the posts, though some obviously do. I *respond* to issues raised here, and investigate them, either outwardly, by searching and reading, or inwardly, by organizing my impressions into an essay. I started this thread with a link to an essay on cold fusion.

    If nobody were interested, easily, avoiding response or not reading in the first place would be sane. Questions were asked. I answered them. Sure, I could boil it down, but that would take a lot of time. In the end, *it gets boiled down.* Issues become clear, and later expressions become more concise, but the process never ends completely, as new aspects are raised, etc.

    Someone else identified a famous comment about that, from Mark Twain, something on the order of "I'd write less, but I don't have time." Twain was expressing what is well-known to creative writers.

    Yes, brevity is the soul of wit. When I'm truly inspired on a topic, I've managed to say in a couple of words, what a shelf full of tomes would not express. Now, how do I develop that capacity? I'm engaged in the process now. You imagine that someone witty just came up with it immediately. Maybe. It happens, but to be reliable, wit must be *informed* and there is a whole process for becoming witty. And most of you absolutely are not willing to engage in it, you detest it.

    This is a very old issue. I take the necessary time when I'm writing polemic, or I'm being paid. It's *expensive.* Otherwise, what you see here is a *first draft*. In a real publication, the repetition, the dicta, all that would mostly be removed. Don't like me giving a speech in your bar? Complain to the owner, or the barkeep. Or go eff yourself.

    It has certainly happened in a face-to-face conversation that I go on-and-on. That happens when I lose context and lose rapport and connection with the person. My training in public speaking is to maintain eye contact. When I do this as I was trained, I am, in fact, speaking, not *to* the audience, but *for* the audience.

    But here I'm just exploring thoughts, and, for me, you don't exist as a presence, unless I make it up. I do that, I develop models of those active here, but they are not *real*.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013
     
    Posted By: pcstru
    Posted By: Duracell
    I believe that it is Abd's sense that he is "writing for a larger audience" in every post that leads him towards such waffling, droning verbosity and that prevents him from engaging with the other posters here in a normal conversational style.
    If you watch, you will see conversational style posts. Some of the long posts are long because many issues were raised by another writer, and each is examined. It would not happen this way face to face. People here assume that I'm not listening, but I actually read quite carefully. In person, the back-and-forth would be very fast. When I first engaged in on-line "conferencing," it was called on the W.E.L.L., I saw the possibility of a new kind of conversation, where there are *no interruptions*. Where many people can "have the floor" at the same time. To really do it well requires hypertext and editing, which is rarely applied, but when it is, the results can be spectacular.

    IMO for him, the forum is a write only medium, he is verbose because he doesn't even read what he is writing (and why should he, no one else does).
    No, pcstru, I read what is posted here in threads I'm active in, *all of it*, and I read it carefully. I also read what I wrote, usually, but only once. Not always. "Conversation," remember? In a face-to-face conversation, do you read what you "wrote" before saying it? It's one style, to be sure. People who are very averse to ever making a mistake or looking like they made a mistake will review everything. And usually get nowhere fast.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013
     
    With a lot of believers, the conversation frequently degenerates to questions about irrelevant things like who is which identity and what writing style they use. Anything to keep from being clear, precise and surgical about the real issues.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013
     
    Posted By: AbdI read what is posted here in threads I'm active in, *all of it*, and I read it carefully.

    Evidence suggests otherwise.

    Posted By: AbdSome of the long posts are long because many issues were raised by another writer, and each is examined

    But most are because you are shit at it.

    Posted By: AbdPeople who are very averse to ever making a mistake or looking like they made a mistake will review everything. And usually get nowhere fast.

    or they usually get to the intended destination much faster.

    This is classic Abd, in that it's just pure rhetoric. It's not actually thinking, it's just taking your pre-existing beliefs and writing them down as if there's no question about them.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013
     
    I'm warming to Abd - about gas mark 5.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013
     
    For example :

    Posted By: AbdYes, brevity is the soul of wit. When I'm truly inspired on a topic, I've managed to say in a couple of words, what a shelf full of tomes would not express. Now, how do I develop that capacity? I'm engaged in the process now. You imagine that someone witty just came up with it immediately. Maybe.


    You could just have left the first part of that paragraph out since it doesn't say anything of interest to anybody but you.

    It happens, but to be reliable, wit must be *informed* and there is a whole process for becoming witty. And most of you absolutely are not willing to engage in it, you detest it.


    And the rest of it is merely offensive, and also without merit since you know nothing of us other than what we tell you. The fact that we don't want to read your stuff doesn't mean we don't want to read _any_ stuff.

    You could fit in here if you want to, but you will have to start thinking more. Free lesson, no charge, which is what I usually get paid for free lessons.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjoshua cude
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013 edited
     
    duplicate deleted
  6.  
    Posted by Abd:
    What led me to read the evidence -- there are about 3000 papers published on cold fusion, about 1000 in peer-reviewed mainstream journals, about two dozen of the latter every year, last I checked --


    Only if the last you checked was around 2000, but we know that's not the case, because you and I have discussed Britz's bibliography as recent as a year or two ago. And you mentioned it again here several times.

    Posted by Abd:
    Posted by MY:
    Posted by Abd:
    Interest in cold fusion has not died.

    It largely has among main line scientific journals as well as most of the press.

    No. Just not so. Publication rates in mainstream journals have quadrupled since the nadir.


    Quadrupled from what? Zero?

    Two dozen articles in peer-reviewed mainstream journals per year? Britz lists *zero* papers in 2011, and only 3 in 2012, one of which is negative, and none of which report excess heat. Of the 16 listed in 2010, only 3 are in mainstream journals, and of those, one is negative and two are theory; the rest are in a decidedly non-mainstream cold fusion source book -- a conference proceedings. None of the years from 2005 to 2009 list even 10 papers in mainstream journals, and typically only 2 or 3 actual positive experimental reports. Britz lists papers from 2 volumes of that Sourcebook (both conf proc), and papers from the J Sci Expl, which is a journal of whacky results, and makes a negative contribution to the credibility of the field.

    Now, there have been papers (that Britz does not list) in the self-published Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, which is about as mainstream as Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics. Most of the papers are in conference proceedings that were *rejected* for publication by the ACS or the APS, and most of the rest are lame theory papers, about half from Hagelstein. They claim it's refereed, but anyone can put pdfs on a web site, and this is just a case of an on-line journal by the deluded, for the deluded, and of the deluded, refereed by the deluded.

    This astounding example of dishonesty on your part should indicate the credibility of the effluvia you've polluted this site with.

    In any case, counting papers is characteristic of pseudoscience. There are thousands of sightings of the loch ness monster, and a hundred thousand claimed allien sightings, but more marginal claims makes them *less* credible, not more, because the likelihood that so many pictures are all blurry is too small to consider -- something like one in a billion.

    If there were a single credible experiment in cold fusion, that gave a predictable result (even on a statistical basis), there would be no need to repeatedly point to the thousand journal papers. But as McKubre himself said in 2008, there is no quantitative reproducibility in the field, and there is no inter-lab reproducibility without exchange of personnel. Most scientists would say that means there is no reproducibility in the field.

    When you have a real phenomenon, understood or not, like high temperature superconductivity, people don't list the number of papers to support it; they cite a single seminal paper that describes how to get the phenomenon. (And by the way, this phenomenon, even though it is less revolutionary than cold fusion would be, has seen more than a hundred thousand papers in the same 20 year period, and in the very best journals, like Science and Nature.

    Posted by Abd:
    That is not "largely dying."


    No, it's largely dead in the mainstream. With the self-exile of Pons, and the death of Fleischmann, there is no intelligence left in the field. Just a bunch of loser researchers (Storms, McKubre, Celani, Hagelstein…), a bunch of opportunistic con-men with no background in physics (Rossi, Dardik, Mills, Godes…), and a bunch of unqualified on-line cheer-leaders (Lomax, Rothwell, Carat, Greenwin…).
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013
     
    Posted By: joshua cude


    Woohoo. Another exiled from Vortex.
  7.  
    ZZziingg!!

    A musical interlude:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU1kTuVSUOw
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinAs we have long ago determined, there are many many more things that are impossible, than are possible. In fact, almost everything is impossible.
    Put your daughter's T-shirt on a paraplegic, toss him into the water, and yell, "SWIM! Anything is possible!!"
    Yes. It's possible you can murder someone. You are using "anything is possible" as if it were an accusation.

    In the training, the full statement is not "Anything is possible." That's a brief summary. The full statement is qualified, it is not unconditional. It does not encourage tossing paraplegics in the water, unless they are prepared and are *inspired* by the possibility and fully consent. And then there is *how* what they have *chosen* is possible. It's not necessarily possible without some transformation of the situation, taking it outside the realm of rational expectation.

    Generally, it's possible to interpret any statement to make it true or false. Intepretation is a *choice*. If you want to choose communication, rather than "winning a debate," intepret statements in ways that increase their truth, rather than ways that deny it.

    "Anything is possible" is *functional,* when used. That slogan is part of a fuller statement that properly qualifies it.

    It is not a "truth." It is a heuristic, generally, denial of "impossibility proofs" as being reliable. They might even be "right," in particular cases, but not always, and that's obvious. "Anything is possible" is a *tool* in the toolbox of transformation. Like any tool, it could be abused.

    What I often do in discussions like this is take banter and take it literally. The claim about tossing a paraplegic in the water was intended as an *obvious* example of something impossible. Connected with this was a claim, I"ve seen it here, that something being "possible" must mean that it's *reliable,* and if it isnt' reliable, it's not really possible.

    We would not toss a paraplegic in the water without precautions, without understanding the possibility and consequences of failure of the *possibility,* and providing for them. Instead, "Anything is possible" is being treated as if it were a logical claim, rather than an unlocking of certain locks and blocks of possibility, which is how it is actually used in training.

    So, could a paraplegic swim? Surely that depends on definitions of terms, and, as well, on possible uncertainty in knowledge. I can easily imagine a way for a paraplegic to swim, such that the event would be titled in a newspaper, something like, "Paraplegic realizes 'impossible' dream, and swims." It would not necessarily be cheap, but *it is not impossible."

    My daughter, for Christmas, gave me a little notebook. She had found a drawing of a pig with wings and had pasted it on the cover. No words.