Creating puppets to discuss unfair treatment to administration.

[Neverfly]

@ Neverfly,
How could you complain about being banned by a frustrated knowitall if you cannot log on? Hence the first sockpuppet.

By scrolling to the bottom of the page and hitting "Contact Us.'

Log out- and try it out- it should work.

Well, ya know, you COULD let the temp ban run its course, then come back and discuss it like a dignified person, as opposed to breaking further forum rules and risking being permanently banned...

Also, true.
If it was a permanent ban and you did not know about the "Contact Us," then I could see it.

 

[Trippy]

Then I get a ban from a disgruntled moderator who was posting fallacies in my thread. He was being emphatic NASA was not invloved with LENR and they have now confirmed they were. So he was just trying to force an opinion.

I see you still haven't understood the point that I made in that thread.

It would also seem you still haven't understood what Zawodny himself has had to say about that video, which pretty much backed up everything I had to say on the matter (eg here).

Incidentally, as has already been pointed out to you, you were banned for not just posting it multiple times in individual posts, but posting it accross multiple subfora, and multiple threads, including threads in which it was off topic.

But please, feel free to demonstrate any fallacies you think I may have posted.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Neverfly,
Never thought of the first option. I prolly will get to try it out soon as the Moderator in Question is here and I am about to call him wrong again. It's a bannable offence here on sciforums.

And it turns out you were WRONG Trippy. Not so sorry to say. As many surmised too many people took the Zawodny video to mean they were supporting Andrea Rossi device and he was forced or asked to retract that video.

However now NASA and ZAWODNY have issued a new video and website release this past week which clearly makes you wrong.

http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.g...sm/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html

above link is to the release proving NASA is involved and has been

and below is new NASA video stating they have been involved for more than 3 years by Zawodny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42hrCRx1JJY

This NEW video is also available on a NASA website but not linkable. You must link to a video page and select it.

Ban me if you feel too bad, I basically canme back to sciforums to let people know they were wrong. I wasn't expecting apologies.

 

[Trippy]

And it turns out you were WRONG Trippy.

[sup][Citation needed][/sup]

No, seriously. repeating the assertion doesn't make it correct. you haven't proven anything.

Not so sorry to say. As many surmised too many people took the Zawodny video to mean they were supporting Andrea Rossi device and he was forced or asked to retract that video.

I pointed out to you to a a blog piece (here) in which Krivit, whom has co-authored work with Zawodny, was bagging Rossi. I even provided you with the link to Zawodny's blog where he talks about what happened, and the fact that his video had been taken out of context.

However now NASA and ZAWODNY have issued a new video and website release this past week which clearly makes you wrong.

http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.g...sm/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html

above link is to the release proving NASA is involved and has been

This is not a claim I have ever made. I'll thankyou to either provide proof, or withdraw the claim.

I am 99% confident that at no stage did I state that NASA was not involved in LENR research.

What I did say, however, was that the clip was not part of an official press release, that you had misunderstood the clip, that the clip was being presented out of context, and that Zawodny was not supporting Rossi.

All of which have been subsequently verified.

and below is new NASA video stating they have been involved for more than 3 years by Zawodny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42hrCRx1JJY

This NEW video is also available on a NASA website but not linkable. You must link to a video page and select it.

Again, this has no relevance to any claim I have made.
At no time have I suggested that NASA isn't involved in LENR research, and at no time have I suggested that Zawodny isn't - in fact I have on at least one occasion explicitly stated that Zawodny was.

So far, you have yet to disprove anything I have actually said.

For the record, and to refresh your memory, my actual claims can be found here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2889460&postcount=815
here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2889481&postcount=816
(I emailed him and reived no response, however his subsequent blog post explains why).
here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2889568&postcount=818
here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2890501&postcount=823
here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2890633&postcount=826

The Irony is that at least one of those posts, and some of my subsequent posts directly contradict the assertions you are making here in this thread about my claims.

 

[Neverfly]

And it turns out you were WRONG Trippy. Not so sorry to say. As many surmised too many people took the Zawodny video to mean they were supporting Andrea Rossi device and he was forced or asked to retract that video.

However now NASA and ZAWODNY have issued a new video and website release this past week which clearly makes you wrong.

Ban me if you feel too bad, I basically canme back to sciforums to let people know they were wrong. I wasn't expecting apologies.

Did you actually read that entire disclaimer?
I watched the video. I linked over to the sites you presented- watched the same video there- read the synopsis you had posted in other thread, again linked here...

Call me crazy but I cannot find anything in any of those that the disclaimer Trippy posted doesn't clarify.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do no know Trippy, nor do I care about his personal "rightness" or not.
I do not know how often he is right or how often he may abuse mod power.
I'm sure he can defend himself just fine on his own.

But in this case, presented for all to see- I see nothing wrong with what Trippy had to say on the issue and I see you making a claim that is not supported.
Maybe it will help... if others are saying the same thing- Others who are not Trippy.



ETA: ... am I the only one that thinks the name "Trippy" sounds like a Happy Tree Friends character?

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Trippy,
You mentioned Krivit before.

Krivit is very biased on this subject and has everything to lose by any advancement of this technology. Krivit is a editor of half a dozen LENR related books which will soon be far out-of-date should these advancements continue. The average price of these books is $175.

He is also the Owner of a website called NewEnergyTimes. A website that appears to be his main livelihood. If any green energy comes to the forefront then other green energys will become redundant and so will his business.

@ Neverfly,
The point in the other thread I was making is that NASA had confirmed they were working on LENR. I received a lot of arguments saying the original video. Linked here for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBlKc0TaqPs
was just a NASA scientist who was working on his own and despite the fact it is on a NASA video on a NASA website (well you get youtube version for moment), and is a NASA scientist who was also filing LENR patents with NASA names and presenting NASA slideshows on LENR for NASA. Despite all that I was receiving comments like..

which only seems to have a slightly changed first few seconds. There is NOTHING to change my POV expressed in post 808 that NASA has had nothing to due with this video.

I will now note that NASA would never release something claimed to be so important with some tie-less spokesman dressed in a plaid hunting shirt / jacket.
Even if it were only 1% as important as claimed, there would be a press conference with hundreds of news people, TV, etc. covering the event. Even though they are not normally physicists, they can smell a scam / delusional ego trip / a mile away. Is there something wrong with your nose?

They were attempting to make the case that Zawodny was working on this video as a "renegade" scientist, and the NASA video and slideshow did not prove NASA was doing LENR research as you can see from the above quote from a different moderator.

The disclaimer put out after the video linked above many believe, was because of the shocking amount of people that surged towards thinking it meant support for an Italian Inventor claiming to be working on the identical theory.

Now I am saying here and there that Obviously he was not a renegade scientist, and his LENR research is now confirmed to be what he was and is working on. That's all.

This new video (from last week) seemed much more coached and even aimed the support at a new type of space vehicle so as not to seem in support of the Italian Inventor. Yet he does claim he has been on this for at least 3 years

At the point I was banned the argument was simple. I was saying NASA was working on LENR and everyone else was saying they were not. Now it has been proven they were. Har, Har.

 

[Neverfly]

At the point I was banned the argument was simple. I was saying NASA was working on LENR and everyone else was saying they were not. Now it has been proven they were. Har, Har.

Well, we all know Trippy didn't say NASA wasn't involved and that you were not banned because of that but because of posting the link repeatedly.

Now, in my opinion, that doesn't seem like a ban offense, right off the bat. I have no idea if you were repeatedly warned or not or if you had other behavior going on... Maybe Trippy will weigh in on that with his opinion.
But let's take a look at YOU.
Whether Trippy was justified or not--

Was it really necessary to post links repeatedly as you had? - No.
Did you feel frustrated and feel justified? -Yes.
Which leads back to question number one.

Is it right to blame the Moderator if other people in the thread are Skeptical of your claim? - No.
Did you feel justified to do so because you had a ban? - Yes.
Leads back to question number 1...

Was creating a sock puppet necessary? - No.
Not only unnecessary because there is a Contact Us link, but also because you could have waited just a couple of days and contacting the higher mods never seems to do squat anyway.

I don't have to agree with your views on science to agree that Moderator action should be held accountable- At this point, you can relfect on what you do have control over- YOU-- and sometimes, the world isn't fair...

I've dealt with absurd injustices on many forums- been banned from quite a few for FIGHTING BACK- not even having been wrong on them (Though two will bend over backwards justifying it anyway.)

Science forums may promote some scientific views- but they are not Fair Public Forums. It's just the way it is and sometimes, you just gotta deal with the fact that those in power will use it. I hate it too.
I just can't tell you if that's what happened here and maybe you can P.M. Trippy and have a talk over it.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Neverfly,
Your reasoning won't fly with me either.

The moderator in question specifically said it was not an official NASA release and if it had been he would have been notified by email. In fact the moderator in question emailed Joseph Zawodny at NASA about this according to claims in that thread. Apparently the moderator in question is apprised of all NASA releases.

No. I was banned so the moderator could put in his say so unchallenged.

Spam/advertising?

I was not linking to a porn site. You go on believing what you like.

I think posting important links several times makes it easy for older people to see them, and that was even a point made by an older member in this very thread.

For example I think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io8_g3a5mHQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io8_g3a5mHQ

is better than

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io8_g3a5mHQ

for a video or link. It stands out more and seriously does not use that much memory.

I am just glad I got to come back and say I was right. I will also come back and say I was correct when various forms of LENR are up and running, and it shouldn't be too far in the future.

 

[prometheus]

No. I was banned so the moderator could put in his say so unchallenged.

What exactly do you think you are doing now if not "challenging the moderator?"

 

[kwhilborn]

I am stating (strong) "opinion" that appears to have solid foundation.

I have avoided Sciforums because of its moderators and I know for a fact I have brought a lot of hits to this website through my various threads, so I feel that they have hurt this website with their behaviour. I am back to show I was right.

I will probably get kicked again and will come back again when I can show LENR is also up and running to rub other members noses in it. Actually; I really won't need to will I, as the technology itself coming to fruition would be enough to show how lame some members here are.

But mainly I was proven right this week.. NASA has admitted to being involved. (Nose rub)

 

[Trippy]

@ Trippy,
You mentioned Krivit before.

Krivit is very biased on this subject and has everything to lose by any advancement of this technology. Krivit is a editor of half a dozen LENR related books which will soon be far out-of-date should these advancements continue. The average price of these books is $175.

He is also the Owner of a website called NewEnergyTimes. A website that appears to be his main livelihood. If any green energy comes to the forefront then other green energys will become redundant and so will his business.

Gosh. If only I had known that before hand. Oh wait...

And yet, nothing here:
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=media

And nothing in my Inbox (I have Kepler, WISE, Herschel and Spitzer, but no Zawodny).

I thought this was interesting though:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012...nergy-catalyzer-caught-on-video/#comment-2874
Krivit is bagging Rossi. Why is this interesting? Because Krivit has co-authored work with Zawodny on LENR, and the video, which appears to be being misrepresented by various posters (including on this forum) is described by Krivet as "A two-minute non-technical video clip on LENRs ... Joseph Zawodny."
Source

It seems like someone may have thoroughly grapsed the wrong end of the stick rather firmly in both hands and started swinging.

-Trippy: 1/13/2012

:shrugs:

@ Neverfly,
The point in the other thread I was making is that NASA had confirmed they were working on LENR. I received a lot of arguments saying the original video. Linked here for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBlKc0TaqPs
was just a NASA scientist who was working on his own and despite the fact it is on a NASA video on a NASA website (well you get youtube version for moment), and is a NASA scientist who was also filing LENR patents with NASA names and presenting NASA slideshows on LENR for NASA. Despite all that I was receiving comments like..
...
They were attempting to make the case that Zawodny was working on this video as a "renegade" scientist, and the NASA video and slideshow did not prove NASA was doing LENR research as you can see from the above quote from a different moderator.

Oh Baloney! The point that was being made was that it was not an official press release from NASA announcing that they had working LENR, but a short technical video made by an individual describing their research, as part of the statutory requirements that NASA and their employees operate under.

The disclaimer put out after the video linked above many believe, was because of the shocking amount of people that surged towards thinking it meant support for an Italian Inventor claiming to be working on the identical theory.

Many? Many who?

Now I am saying here and there that Obviously he was not a renegade scientist, and his LENR research is now confirmed to be what he was and is working on. That's all.

Conspiracy theory.

At the point I was banned the argument was simple. I was saying NASA was working on LENR and everyone else was saying they were not. Now it has been proven they were. Har, Har.

No, at the point you were banned you were insisting that it was an official NASA press release claiming the existence of working cold fusion, you even went as far as using a sock puppet to accuse me of misrepresenting Zawodny's blog post.

 

[Trippy]

The moderator in question specifically said it was not an official NASA release and if it had been he would have been notified by email.

Correct. I also clarified that I was subscribed to an e-mail news list, to which press releases get sent. This isn't top secret stuff.

In fact the moderator in question emailed Joseph Zawodny at NASA about this according to claims in that thread.

Are you accusing me of lying?

Here's a screen grab of the email I sent him - I've removed some personal details, for my own protection of course.

Apparently the moderator in question is apprised of all NASA releases.

Yes. As I have said, NASA run an email list to which they send press releases.

No. I was banned so the moderator could put in his say so unchallenged.

Nope.

Spam/advertising?

I was not linking to a porn site. You go on believing what you like.

Forum Rules
When posting... ...Do not cross-post.

Behaviour that may get you banned... ...Spamming or advertising... ...Repetitive or vexatious posting...

Spam
16. Advertising and spam is not permitted on sciforums.

As I said at the time, posting the same link repeatedly in posts across multiple threads constitutes spam, and is borderingh on trolling.

I am just glad I got to come back and say I was right. I will also come back and say I was correct when various forms of LENR are up and running, and it shouldn't be too far in the future.

Still with the strawman.

 

[NMSquirrel]

oh great..now he has rehashed his argument here in this thread..

why is it so important, Kwhil, that he admit you are right and he is wrong?

 

[Chipz]

Trippy once banned me for telling a person trying to create a reaction between acids and bases not to build a bomb.