Posted by sno on January 27, 2012, 8:05 am
On 1/27/2012 1:00 AM, BJACOBY@teranews.com wrote:
> On 1/26/2012 1:07 PM, amdx wrote:
>>> It would probably fit better as alt.energy.lenr - but it's worth asking
>>> yourself "who is going to post" and "who is going to read", and then
>>> considering what signal-to-noise ratio the group is likely to have...
>>>
>> I had thought about signal to noise, my real concern is the noise I've
>> been putting on the group we share. But the group hasn't had much else
>> lately.
> This is doubtless a bad idea. First because the interested parties are
> few and second because it will be a MAJOR noise target for "debunkers"
> determined to disrupt any reasonable civilized discussions with the
> usual name-calling and thread highjacking.
> If you want an example just go take a peer at ANY of the UFO groups.
> Have you EVER and I mean EVER seen ANY reasonable discussion of credible
> UFO data there? Nay. Instead it's a personal posting ground for all UFO
> "strategic writers". Expect the same for any LENR group.
> I urge you to consider setting up a forum instead. You know like
> PhysicsForums and the guitar forums etc. There are a million of them out
> there and the all seem to use the same software. The downside is you
> have to find a server and pay for software etc. but it allows a couple
> of things that are essential. One would be moderating the discussions to
> keep disruptors out. And the other would be that it would provide a nice
> centralized storage area for all the important fundamental papers
> (including user-supplied data) on the subject. You know, sort of a
> combination discussion group and LENR "wikipedia" in one site.
> The downside of a forum, is that once the "wrong" people get in charge,
> it loses it's open character and becomes an organ of establishment
> agenda (like PhysicsForums or Wikipedia).
> Think about that. Like I said, go check the UFO groups to see what
> happens to specialized groups like alt.LENR would be.
sci.physics.fusion is a newsgroup for fusion and especial cold fusion....
see description here....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.fusion/topics
have fun.....sno
--
Correct Scientific Terminology:
Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
to be generally assumed to be true.
Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.
Posted by Marvin the Martian on January 27, 2012, 12:33 pm
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:05:18 -0500, sno wrote:
> On 1/27/2012 1:00 AM, BJACOBY@teranews.com wrote:
>> On 1/26/2012 1:07 PM, amdx wrote:
>>
>>>> It would probably fit better as alt.energy.lenr - but it's worth
>>>> asking yourself "who is going to post" and "who is going to read",
>>>> and then considering what signal-to-noise ratio the group is likely
>>>> to have...
>>>>
>>> I had thought about signal to noise, my real concern is the noise I've
>>> been putting on the group we share. But the group hasn't had much else
>>> lately.
>>
>> This is doubtless a bad idea. First because the interested parties are
>> few and second because it will be a MAJOR noise target for "debunkers"
>> determined to disrupt any reasonable civilized discussions with the
>> usual name-calling and thread highjacking.
>>
>> If you want an example just go take a peer at ANY of the UFO groups.
>> Have you EVER and I mean EVER seen ANY reasonable discussion of
>> credible UFO data there? Nay. Instead it's a personal posting ground
>> for all UFO "strategic writers". Expect the same for any LENR group.
>>
>> I urge you to consider setting up a forum instead. You know like
>> PhysicsForums and the guitar forums etc. There are a million of them
>> out there and the all seem to use the same software. The downside is
>> you have to find a server and pay for software etc. but it allows a
>> couple of things that are essential. One would be moderating the
>> discussions to keep disruptors out. And the other would be that it
>> would provide a nice centralized storage area for all the important
>> fundamental papers (including user-supplied data) on the subject. You
>> know, sort of a combination discussion group and LENR "wikipedia" in
>> one site.
>>
>> The downside of a forum, is that once the "wrong" people get in charge,
>> it loses it's open character and becomes an organ of establishment
>> agenda (like PhysicsForums or Wikipedia).
>>
>>
>> Think about that. Like I said, go check the UFO groups to see what
>> happens to specialized groups like alt.LENR would be.
>>
>>
>>
> sci.physics.fusion is a newsgroup for fusion and especial cold
> fusion....
>
> see description here....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.fusion/topics
>
> have fun.....sno
Bad idea. It is an unmoderated group, and the same trolls who killed
sci.physics.fusion still look at it now and then so they can jump in and
trash it again should it come back to life.
While I appreciated their criticism of LENR, their insults and other bad
behavior was unnecessary.
Posted by sno on January 27, 2012, 1:47 pm
On 1/27/2012 7:33 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:05:18 -0500, sno wrote:
>> On 1/27/2012 1:00 AM, BJACOBY@teranews.com wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2012 1:07 PM, amdx wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It would probably fit better as alt.energy.lenr - but it's worth
>>>>> asking yourself "who is going to post" and "who is going to read",
>>>>> and then considering what signal-to-noise ratio the group is likely
>>>>> to have...
>>>>>
>>>> I had thought about signal to noise, my real concern is the noise I've
>>>> been putting on the group we share. But the group hasn't had much else
>>>> lately.
>>>
>>> This is doubtless a bad idea. First because the interested parties are
>>> few and second because it will be a MAJOR noise target for "debunkers"
>>> determined to disrupt any reasonable civilized discussions with the
>>> usual name-calling and thread highjacking.
>>>
>>> If you want an example just go take a peer at ANY of the UFO groups.
>>> Have you EVER and I mean EVER seen ANY reasonable discussion of
>>> credible UFO data there? Nay. Instead it's a personal posting ground
>>> for all UFO "strategic writers". Expect the same for any LENR group.
>>>
>>> I urge you to consider setting up a forum instead. You know like
>>> PhysicsForums and the guitar forums etc. There are a million of them
>>> out there and the all seem to use the same software. The downside is
>>> you have to find a server and pay for software etc. but it allows a
>>> couple of things that are essential. One would be moderating the
>>> discussions to keep disruptors out. And the other would be that it
>>> would provide a nice centralized storage area for all the important
>>> fundamental papers (including user-supplied data) on the subject. You
>>> know, sort of a combination discussion group and LENR "wikipedia" in
>>> one site.
>>>
>>> The downside of a forum, is that once the "wrong" people get in charge,
>>> it loses it's open character and becomes an organ of establishment
>>> agenda (like PhysicsForums or Wikipedia).
>>>
>>>
>>> Think about that. Like I said, go check the UFO groups to see what
>>> happens to specialized groups like alt.LENR would be.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> sci.physics.fusion is a newsgroup for fusion and especial cold
>> fusion....
>>
>> see description here....
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.fusion/topics
>>
>> have fun.....sno
> Bad idea. It is an unmoderated group, and the same trolls who killed
> sci.physics.fusion still look at it now and then so they can jump in and
> trash it again should it come back to life.
> While I appreciated their criticism of LENR, their insults and other bad
> behavior was unnecessary.
I thought homepower would be appropriate to post to since if proven lenr
would be mainly used for home heating and possibly home electricity
generation...
have fun....sno
Posted by Marvin the Martian on January 27, 2012, 12:22 pm
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:00:28 -0500, BJACOBY@teranews.com wrote:
> On 1/26/2012 1:07 PM, amdx wrote:
>
>>> It would probably fit better as alt.energy.lenr - but it's worth
>>> asking yourself "who is going to post" and "who is going to read", and
>>> then considering what signal-to-noise ratio the group is likely to
>>> have...
>>>
>> I had thought about signal to noise, my real concern is the noise I've
>> been putting on the group we share. But the group hasn't had much else
>> lately.
>
> This is doubtless a bad idea. First because the interested parties are
> few and second because it will be a MAJOR noise target for "debunkers"
> determined to disrupt any reasonable civilized discussions with the
> usual name-calling and thread highjacking.
>
> If you want an example just go take a peer at ANY of the UFO groups.
> Have you EVER and I mean EVER seen ANY reasonable discussion of credible
> UFO data there? Nay. Instead it's a personal posting ground for all UFO
> "strategic writers". Expect the same for any LENR group.
>
> I urge you to consider setting up a forum instead. You know like
> PhysicsForums and the guitar forums etc. There are a million of them out
> there and the all seem to use the same software. The downside is you
> have to find a server and pay for software etc. but it allows a couple
> of things that are essential. One would be moderating the discussions to
> keep disruptors out. And the other would be that it would provide a nice
> centralized storage area for all the important fundamental papers
> (including user-supplied data) on the subject. You know, sort of a
> combination discussion group and LENR "wikipedia" in one site.
>
> The downside of a forum, is that once the "wrong" people get in charge,
> it loses it's open character and becomes an organ of establishment
> agenda (like PhysicsForums or Wikipedia).
>
>
> Think about that. Like I said, go check the UFO groups to see what
> happens to specialized groups like alt.LENR would be.
PhysicsForums won't allow discussion of cold fusion. They consider it
crank physics. Basically, if you can't read about it in a textbook or a
journal article, then you can't post about it in PhysicsForums, which
makes it useless; I'll just read the dang textbook.
There exist a newsgroup, sci.physics.fusion, which was chartered for cold
fusion discussion to get it out of sci.physics in the same way that
sci.physics.relativity was supposed to attract away all the relativity
trolls. As you said would happen, the Guardians Of Proper Physics (GOPP)
did their damnedest to kill any and all discussion and shut it down,
which is sad because they had many experts in the LENR field posting
there before they polluted it with their mental fecal matter and vomit.
The problem is, the GOPPers came up with some good points now and again,
so which provides a service. While they could not be civil, they brought
out many good points. The bad thing is, once they ran out of rebuttals,
they went cyber-stalker. Yeah.
I see Robert Heater is still posting the "conventional fusion faq" on
sci.physics.fusion. Humm...
Posted by gaby de wilde on January 27, 2012, 2:09 pm
> On 1/26/2012 1:07 PM, amdx wrote:
> >> It would probably fit better as alt.energy.lenr - but it's worth asking
> >> yourself "who is going to post" and "who is going to read", and then
> >> considering what signal-to-noise ratio the group is likely to have...
> > I had thought about signal to noise, my real concern is the noise I've
> > been putting on the group we share. But the group hasn't had much else
> > lately.
> This is doubtless a bad idea. First because the interested parties are
> few and second because it will be a MAJOR noise target for "debunkers"
> determined to disrupt any reasonable civilized discussions with the
> usual name-calling and thread highjacking.
> If you want an example just go take a peer at ANY of the UFO groups.
> Have you EVER and I mean EVER seen ANY reasonable discussion of credible
> UFO data there? Nay. Instead it's a personal posting ground for all UFO
> "strategic writers". Expect the same for any LENR group.
> I urge you to consider setting up a forum instead. You know like
> PhysicsForums and the guitar forums etc. There are a million of them out
> there and the all seem to use the same software. The downside is you
> have to find a server and pay for software etc. but it allows a couple
> of things that are essential. One would be moderating the discussions to
> keep disruptors out. And the other would be that it would provide a nice
> centralized storage area for all the important fundamental papers
> (including user-supplied data) on the subject. You know, sort of a
> combination discussion group and LENR "wikipedia" in one site.
> The downside of a forum, is that once the "wrong" people get in charge,
> it loses it's open character and becomes an organ of establishment
> agenda (like PhysicsForums or Wikipedia).
> Think about that. Like I said, go check the UFO groups to see what
> happens to specialized groups like alt.LENR would be.
How about archiving the trolls for future generations to laugh at?
XML site map
>>> It would probably fit better as alt.energy.lenr - but it's worth asking
>>> yourself "who is going to post" and "who is going to read", and then
>>> considering what signal-to-noise ratio the group is likely to have...
>>>
>> I had thought about signal to noise, my real concern is the noise I've
>> been putting on the group we share. But the group hasn't had much else
>> lately.
> This is doubtless a bad idea. First because the interested parties are
> few and second because it will be a MAJOR noise target for "debunkers"
> determined to disrupt any reasonable civilized discussions with the
> usual name-calling and thread highjacking.
> If you want an example just go take a peer at ANY of the UFO groups.
> Have you EVER and I mean EVER seen ANY reasonable discussion of credible
> UFO data there? Nay. Instead it's a personal posting ground for all UFO
> "strategic writers". Expect the same for any LENR group.
> I urge you to consider setting up a forum instead. You know like
> PhysicsForums and the guitar forums etc. There are a million of them out
> there and the all seem to use the same software. The downside is you
> have to find a server and pay for software etc. but it allows a couple
> of things that are essential. One would be moderating the discussions to
> keep disruptors out. And the other would be that it would provide a nice
> centralized storage area for all the important fundamental papers
> (including user-supplied data) on the subject. You know, sort of a
> combination discussion group and LENR "wikipedia" in one site.
> The downside of a forum, is that once the "wrong" people get in charge,
> it loses it's open character and becomes an organ of establishment
> agenda (like PhysicsForums or Wikipedia).
> Think about that. Like I said, go check the UFO groups to see what
> happens to specialized groups like alt.LENR would be.