Moderation in Moderation

There has been some discussion here about moderation lately, and it is something that I have to deal with every day, so I thought it might be useful to mention it again.

My approach to moderation has had to change somewhat over time. Because the volume of comments seems to be increasing, moderation needs more attention these days, and I have had to reevaluate my approach.

E-Cat World is a site that takes serously LENR in general, and the E-Cat specifically. I believe we are looking at an energy source that has vast potential for good, and I will not allow E-Cat World to become a venue where critics and mockers are given free rein. We assume here that cold fusion is an important topic, and one worthy of mature discussion.

That said, I do not delete skeptical and critical comments as a matter of course. I take into account the content, context, tone of comments before I make a decision about moderation. I also will look at whether a poster is repeatedly posting essentially the same thing. I often moderate posts that are mocking and ridiculing in nature.

Not every comment goes into moderation here on E-Cat World, but there are some that do. Anyone’s first post is held for moderation. Once your first post has been approved, then usually subsequent posts will be posted automatically. I have set my software to send posts directly into the moderation file based on ‘trigger’ keywords (some of which experienced posters have figured out), but those keywords can and do change over time. Just because something has been held for moderation, does not mean it is considered objectionable — comments held are usually, but not always approved.

There is also an automatic spam filter in place which I have no control over. Occasionally, and for reasons I don’t understand, perfectly innocuous comments end up in the spam filter. Since I rarely check the spam file, you may need to contact me to let me know if your posts are disappearing.

Since I am not always at my computer and I do sleep, sometimes moderation does not happen for some time after comments are posted.

Overall I feel happy with the approach I have taken, and I am very pleased with the very many comments that provide useful news, information and insights. I think you can get a pretty good E-Cat education on this site just from the comments posted here!

Moderation is a constant balancing act, and it’s a role I take seriously. I may sometimes err on the side of leniency, and at other times err on the side of severity, but I hope it balances out in the long run. I do try to be fair and I do want well intentioned readers to have their say.

  • s

    The question then is: Is there any evidence that would make the admin not believe the ecat is real? Asking because people who post here need to feel this website is objective. When a national testing institute raises doubt about this, that is something an objective person can’t ignore. Although this website generates revenue for the admin, if people start to feel it is biased, they may go elsewhere to post.

    • Blanco69

      Those of us who frequently zip over to ecat news can see for themselves the destructive power of insane skeptism. I for one find it extremely tiresome endlessly debating whether ecat is real or not. However, there’s much more constructive discussion to be had if you move forward on the evidence that appears to be before us. For me, this forum stands out as the most informed and rapidly evolving transcript of this amazing story of any to be found. Don’t change a thing Frank. Onwards!

      • s

        So, you too ignore the “evidence” presented by the investors and the national testing institute? If you choose to believe certain items and ignore others that is up to you. Just be warned that high capital investors are starting to look at the ecat now and their threshold for “believing” is a lot higher than that of bloggers.

        • captain

          IMO U’re a candidate to be Admin watched for mod.n

          • Tangled Connections

            When I first heard about the e-cat over a year ago I checked out all the blogs on the subject and settled on this one as it seemed to have a lot of well informed contributors with a good balance and representation of both pro and anti Rossi camps. The respectful discussions and sometime arguments between members helped me work out what the critical issues were and come to my own viewpoint. I hope this balance can be maintained and you certainly seem to manage that Admin. I like the positivity of the majority but would be sad to lose the critical voices. I think repetition is the main enemy, if people can’t make there point then move on then moderation is called for. Until irrefutable proof in the shape of a watertight third party report or a truly convincing demo comes along then the sceptics should be respected and tolerated as much as anyone else on here.

          • Don Witcher

            The problem is that when a site is targeted by professional trolling organizations they will overwhelm the site with so many repetitious and inane posts that it drives away those who wish to pursue reasonable and thoughtful discussions. That is their purpose. The perfect example of this is the ecatnews site. I don’t even go there anymore and I am finding that my interest in ecatworld is starting to wane for the same reason.

          • This thread is certainly bringing out a lot of unproductive discussion (guilty!) and one or two rather repetitious skeptics seem to be taking advantage of it, in order to take discussion some way from developments and speculation about cold fusion.

            Admin – I hope you can find a new topic header soon, as this one seems to be providing a venue for some comments by these skeptics which are of little value.

          • s

            It’s truly amazing how, if one demands scientific proof before belieiving something on an alternative energy/free energy website, they are instantly labeled a skeptic. Feel free to keep “believing” in the ecat and signing up for pre-order lists. Personally, I won’t believe the ecat works as claimed until there is a 3rd party, completely independent test which shows it does.

          • Ged

            No, it’s people who do not listen to the proof they do have, do not engage in meaningful discussions, and just parrot the same things over and over again who are troublesome.

            All scientists are skeptics. But skepticism means discussing and evaluating information that you do have, and looking for what more information you need to move forward from where you are. Not simply sitting on your rear deriding everyone in the name of “need more this or that!”.

            You at least, S, have put forth what it is you are looking for. Which is a reasonable and rational thing. However, you’ve gotten a 3rd party test, and there’s a wealth of information to evaluate in it, if you would wish to do so. Or follow along the discussions the last few days we’ve been having here.

            You know, the constructive intellectual discourse that is beneficial in finding out the truth, whatever it may be.

          • Marc Stone

            Then obviously the sun shouldn’t have been believe in until the 20th century. What is more important here is a working “product”. If you pump 1 kw/h in and get 6 kw/h out…then I dont care if the thing runs on cold fusion, gremlins, or mouse farts. The science can be worked out later.

          • s

            Didn’t mean to post two similar posts in a row. Didn’t see the other one on site so I posted again.

          • DaveS

            Slightly off the Moderation topic but seems fairly important to note that Rossi “says” that he will be releasing the Safety Certificate for the 1 megawatt E-Cat within “hours”.


            Giuseppe B
            September 12th, 2012 at 7:22 PM
            Hi Mr. Rossi,
            As you have claimed during the Zurich Conference, your classic E-cat model, was certificated by the SGS. But the SGS when contacted cannot prove your claim, and show us any certification. Can you explain us why?


            Andrea Rossi
            September 13th, 2012 at 1:45 AM
            Dear Giuseppe B.:
            Mr “Gary Wright” ( a false name that the coward snake – The Snake- is using for cowardice) has contacted SGS in an unproper way and has put an unproper question.
            So he published on his newbogusenergybricolage that we do not have a SGS certificate. This is the evidence, as if there was any necessity, that when the Snake ( or, better, the puppet Snake) writes, he usually publishes a falsity.
            Within hours you will find our Voluntary Safety Certificate.
            So you will see who is that says the truth and who is that has an agenda.
            Now we are very close to make a plant able to make power, and the puppeteers are trying all they can to discredit us: this is why I am caring not too much of the mumbojumbo growing up around and focus on the factory where we are making the real work. But from the violence of the attacs you can read the fear they have of the fact that we are making it. Not to mention the blackmails and the threats I am receiving on dayly scale. Just let me work and we’ll see.
            Warm Regards,

          • Don Witcher

            Some real information for a change. We are now at a real “moment of truth”. The disclosure, or nondisclosure of the certificate number will define the future.

          • Jim Johnson

            Frank, you’re doing an incredible job with this site, and a real service to LENR.

            Regarding moderation, the primary issue seems to be skeptism.

            I think it’s important to distinquish, as others have done here, between true skeptism and pseudo-skeptism. True skeptics investigate the facts at hand. They don’t go further into making negative assertions or implications. Pseudo-skeptics, as Bob describes above, simply want to create cognitive dissonance, i.e. disturbance of clear cognition, for personal psychological reasons, such as narcissism, resentment, or the need to be abusive.

            Cognitive dissonance itself is not negative. However, when it is repetitively created, with *no explicit justification*, it effectively becomes abuse.

            There are two types of behavior on this site that in my view are abusive pseudo-skepticm.

            1) Repeatedly making statements to the effect that *there is no definitive proof that Leonardo’s actual technology substantially matches its public claims”.

            2) Repeatedly making statements or complaints to the effect that Leonardo should release its intellectual property to the world at large.

            The first is a debate about the nature of truth. The pseudo-skeptics never address the nature of truth directly, so their *repeated* assertions in this topic can only be for the purpose of creating cognitive dissonance to feed their personal psychological needs.

            The second is a complete contradiction of sensible entrepreneurial development. Again, the pseudo-skeptics never address the nature of entrepreneurial endeavor directly, so again their *repeated* postings on this topic can only be for the purpose of creating cognitive dissonance to feed their personal psychological needs.

            A major difference between fantasy and reality is that reality can be analyzed indefinitely, whereas the analysis of fantasy soon ends in a personal, subjective illusion. If the pseudo-skeptics cannot provide further explanation of their assertions, motives, outlooks, or alternative scenarios, then they are just expressing their illusions. If they are doing it repeatedly, they are either being abusive or thoughtless.

            In either case they degrade the value of this site.

          • Yes, repetitiveness, particularly of impossible/unreasonable demands and unjustified assertions, is indeed the key to identifying pseudoskeptics. Allowing such behaviour to continue unchecked, even in the name of balance,is potentially quite a slippery slope. While I think the balance here is about right, I’m not sure it is productive to allow too much rope to those who too frequently approach the borderline.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            I suppose the skeptics consider themselves as ‘do-gooders’, trying to rescue mankind from false hope. They certainly have a smug sense of intellectual superiority.

            “The road to hell is paved with do-gooders.” – William Holden

          • Javier Miranda

            Being this such a hot topic that has the potential of changing globally the availability of energy all over the world and, for the same reason affecting great interests, it foreseeable that it would have so many retractors, not to mention the stablished scientific so used to be seen as the only true, when putting things in perspective the great advances in humankind in some time or another where considered scams and blasphemies or simple lies. Let´s hope, yes hope, all this developments became soon a reality. My regards to all the persons involved in this brave enterprise.

          • Daniel M. Basso

            I agree. Moderation is indispensable, but fairness is the key.

            OT for admin: would it be possible to receive a notification of replies by mail?

          • Ged

            I think our Admin does an amazing job at balancing exactly that, in all I’ve seen. I agree indeed, and hope the tone and balance of this site’s comments continue as they have. But those repetitious posts are starting to be a bit distracting and disruptive, especially when done multiple times in the same thread.

          • Krish


        • Don Witcher

          s What evidence? There has been no publication of numbers, description of test protocol,participants name, peer review or NTI confirmation. You simply have no concept of what it takes to find truth.

        • Ged

          I think you are showing confirmation bias. Instead of subjecting this one claim to the same skepticism you do much more solid claims, you are going all out thinking it is true. What evidence do we have to back up what was said? Where’s the data? Where’s the name of the people? Where’s the third party confirmation? Who were the supposed investors? Etc etc. These common questions we ask, I think you have forgotten to ask in this case.

          Add to that, that the fact checking with math, the raw data we have, and physical wire constraints alone all are contrary to the claim; and I think you’ve veered solidly into “confirmation bias” territory and are now a “believer” in that release.

          • Andrew Macleod

            Well said.

        • Omega Z


          Why does someone walk away from a project that is in on going tests & Development Changes. Any rational person would wait for final conclusions. Regardless of any single test.

          I can come to only 2 conclusions.

          1. They had other motives from the start. Maybe a better offer from a competitor??

          2. It’s said Rossi can be hard to get along with. Maybe in discussing their differences, Rossi angered them & they determined to not back the research no matter the results.

    • S, I think most regular users feel that this site is truly objective, in that any reasonable comments based in fact are permitted. You seem to be using ‘objective’ as code for ‘anything goes’ – a false balance where, if positive and constructive posts are permitted, then negative and destructive posts should also be allowed. Many of us have seen where this goes on eCat News, and would not want to see a repetition.

      Your comments about admin (both of them) are unpleasant and uncalled for. The fact that your post is still here shows more tolerance than I would display, if I ran the blog. If you feel that this forum is biased, please do feel free to go elsewhere.

      • s

        And you just made my point. Why is there one website dedicated to “believers” and one dedicated to people who demand strict scientific proof for the claims? Shouldn’t “believers” and people who demand scientific proof exist on the same website?

        Now that VCs and real investors (not blog readers who sign up on a pre-order list) are involved, I have a feeling this story will quickly go one way or the other. As much as I hope the Ecat works as claimed, in my opinion only, I haven’t seen any airtight evidence to support those claims.

        • georgehants

          s if you use the term “believers” again I believe you should be removed.
          It has been explained many times that we wait Evidence like all sensible people but simple refuse to deny and abuse until the full Evidence is in .

        • “Shouldn’t “believers” and people who demand scientific proof exist on the same website?” If by ‘people who demand scientific proof’ you mean those who continually try for their own reasons to misrepresent the facts and poison rational discussion, by using diversion, repetition and innuendo – then no. ECN is clear proof of that. You seem to be veering quite close to that category yourself.

          • GreenWin

            Afternoon gents. Frank has a near impossible task, but it doing it with great decorum. While discussing moderation I find it appropriate to look at ideas which threaten the status quo – certainly LENR, cold fusion and Andrea Rossi do. The control of knowledge is primary in maintaining any status quo and control of specialized knowledge even more important. Take, for example THIS statement from Max Plank, where until just recently a key phrase (in italics) has been removed from mainstream publications:

            “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of the atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Plank 1944, Florence, Italy

            There is a great difference between the censoring of illuminating thought and that meant only to keep one in the dark.

      • Bob

        Here is a truth…
        The reason the “abusive” skeptics want to come to sites that are looking at this intriguing story of LENR and ECAT is not to constructively discuss LENR (Nothing wrong with discussing questions that need resolved in a positive way) but they have a need to belittle and mock others! That is why they do not go to “other sites”. If a site only has “abusive” skeptics, they have no one to abuse. Since thier goal is not to constructively discuss ECAT (they could do this among themselves), they try to go to sites where positive posters are, so they can do thier cyber bullying.

        I do not believe in UFO’s for the most part (sorry George), but I do not go to UFO sites and belittle or torment the users there. I have no need to do that. I agree with George that unless I can be constructive in a postive, polite way, I do not have to say anything. I can observe and if new evidence should come out, I should openly evaluate it.

        So as people will notice, news of both a “positive” and “negative” nature in regards to ECat are presented here. It is not that this site ignores the problems. It is just that they are recognized, evaluted for what they are and we move on with a positive wait and see. Trashing other posters, Rossi, or others does no good. It does not prove anything since the skeptics have no more “proof” than the believers. Remember “Lack of Proof that something works” is not “Proof that is does not work or cannot work”. Yes one can say it points to fraud or points to a scam, but what is the purpose in that? The real motives of the abusive skeptic is not “I need to protect the world from this scammer”. It is to belittle and mock.

        So, everyone have a good day. I will set back and watch the show. If I have a question that I would like feed back on, I will ask it. Othewise, I am not there, I am not testing, I am not building, I am not investing therefore I am not criticizing and will evaluate the facts as they are made known.

        • Well said. I think that summarises the general mood here nicely.

          I hope it stays that way until the subject finally emerges into the mainstream. If that means deleting the posts of a few ‘cyber bullies’, repetitious naysayers, or those with more sinister motives for attempting to do damage, then – no problem.

        • s

          Well, the people who are incorrectly being called skeptics are actually trying to do people a favor. For example, 10’s of thousands, if not 100’s of thousands of people signed up for an ecat preorder list. Now, it is possible that word might be coming out that development that the home version of the ecat seems to be delayed.

          • Ged

            I think we’ve assumed that since the start of summer. And it’s deployment, rather than development which sounds likely to be delayed. Certifying something the average Joe can use isn’t easy.

          • GreenWin

            Certifying something that threatens the status quo may take a miracle. Fortunately, miracles do occur.

          • As one who is on the preorder list, I have yet to discover the risk I have taken. No-one has asked me for any money, or given me opportunity to provide money. I just filled my home oil tank. I do not expect to be able to convert my preorder into an order until the home e-cat is UL listed.

            S, you have saved me many hours and dollars with your skepticism, thanks. BTW, your myopic focus on Rossi is the real problem. Please check out what all of the others are saying about their own LENR experiments — others like NASA, MIT, the USAF, US Navy, and so many other highly respected institutions. There is nothing here folks, its all pathological science. Please move along.

          • georgehants

            ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news and science breakthroughs — updated daily
            Boiling Water Without Bubbles: Researchers Engineer Special Surface, Allowing Water to Boil Without Producing Bubbles.
            This discovery could help reduce damage to surfaces, prevent bubbling explosions and may someday be used to enhance heat transfer equipment, reduce drag on ships and lead to anti-frost technologies.

          • Don Witcher

            In case anybody on this blogsite might be interested here is the certification.

        • georgehants

          Bob, agreed and just to put the record straight I do not believe in UFO’s, as with Cold Fusion I believe that the fair Evidence is certainly sufficient to warrant open-minded un-biased research.
          That would apply to every subject showing Evidence, fair theory or even strong intuition.
          The Placebo effect is officially denied to medical science although many good nurses and doctors etc. understand it’s power and use it regularly.
          Science is closed-minded, incompetent and dangerous as shown by Cold Fusion and many other important subjects denied by following Dogma and opinion.
          Only Evidence counts and to say “I” do not believe in [email protected] therefore there should be no research is clearly inept.
          Study demonstrates that placebo response occurs at nonconscious level
          New findings demonstrate the unconscious mind plays a key role in pain experiences

          • georgehants

            Bob, sorry I did not mean you are inept, but anybody who says “I” do not believe therefore there should be no research.
            You could read my comment wrongly.

          • Bob

            No problem and thank you for the reply. I was in error with my comment! I certainly did not mean any disrespect!

            In truth, I should never assume what someone believes, so I humbly offer my apology in that. Now days, a misplaced sentence can go far and be repeated!

            I do know and recognize your point and it is well taken. One will always learn more by being open minded to the facts. Not to be fooled, but to be educated.

            A favor saying of mine…”It is those people who think they are perfect and know everything that make it difficult for
            us who are and do!” 🙂

            (Strictly satirical)

      • tappanjack

        A little (actually substantial) historical perspective:
        1899: Two brothers fly a box kite to test their design of a glider they are attempting to design.
        1900: A trip to Kitty Hawk NC to test their glider.
        1901: Further testing of their glider at Kitty Hawk.
        1902: Further testing of their glider at Kitty Hawk as well as approval of the first patent, not for a flying machine but for the ability to control the aircraft surfaces in 3 dimensions.
        1903: Told by the powers that be their engine specs. could not be met. Thus they built their own. First powered human flight at Kitty Hawk.
        1904-1905: Private flights at Huffman Prairie with improved flyers.
        1904:The only photos of the flights of 1904–1905 were taken by the brothers. (A few photos were damaged in the Great Dayton Flood of 1913, but most survived intact.) In 1904 Ohio beekeeping businessman Amos Root, a technology enthusiast, saw a few flights including the first circle. Articles he wrote for his beekeeping magazine were the only published eyewitness reports of the Huffman Prairie flights, except for the unimpressive early hop local newsmen saw. Root offered a report to ______Scientific American magazine, but the editor turned it down____. As a result, the news was not widely known outside of Ohio, and was often met with skepticism. The Paris edition of the Herald Tribune headlined a 1906 article on the Wrights “FLYERS OR LIARS?”

        In years to come Dayton newspapers would proudly celebrate the hometown Wright brothers as national heroes, but the local reporters somehow missed one of the most important stories in history as it was happening a few miles from their doorstep. James M. Cox, publisher at that time of the Dayton Daily News (later governor of Ohio and Democratic presidential nominee in 1920), expressed the attitude of newspapermen—and the public—in those days when he admitted years later, “Frankly, none of us believed it.”[63]a (a)Wikipedia

        So Mr Rossi you continue to do as you see fit or guided I for one as well as many others understand and can wait on your trans formative invention.
        PS Ignore the skeptics they are a distraction to you….

        • Joel C.

          Well said!

        • vbasic

          @tappanjack Thank you for the historical perspective which definitely has parallels to the LENR situation. Another parallel, Dr. Samuel Langley was given federal grants to develop a flying machine before the Wrights and failed. It was given that he would succeed just as the subsidized Hot Fusion research would succeed and hasn’t. While LENR is basically done by private investment.

      • Ivan_cev

        Objetive, cames from the word object that means something concret that you could see, touch, smell,..etc, otherwise based on somthing real.

    • jedslater

      First! is LENR real? Yes it is real, proven by many. Is it controllable and ready for the market? who knows we certainly don’t! Are we inpatient? H*** YEAH! can we wait a little long? sure if the release date are correct this time!

      Thank for a great forum.

      just my 5 cents

  • barty

    As i said a long time ago, it would be better for you if you would use a professional forum software for discussions.

    Something like phpBB, it’s as easy to install as this wordpress blog, and there are plugins with that you can connect your blog posts into the forum.

    In the forum it’s so much easier to search for keywords and posts from a certain user.

    The Forum you’ve integratet is okay, but it takes much getting used to, compared to a phpBB Forum.

    You would also have the possibility to give some users you trust the permissions to moderate certain forums and so on. You would have more control than at the moment.

    You should think about it. 😉

    • Ivan_cev

      What?… You do not want to hear the voices of people who disagree with your belief’s?
      You already accepted e-cat like real? and hurts if some one says it may not be.
      Do you build a house in the sand? or you put a solid foundation first?
      No body can say the e-cat is real until sees a demo with a control device.
      Or sees a self sustaining device with input=0.
      we have learn how deceptive could be measuring electricity when the waves does not follow the standard sinusoidal waves.
      We have read Rossi changing the power supply to a variac, as response of the measurement controversy.
      We have seen report with no letter head and no signature.
      We need to be open an evaluate the evidence.
      In the other hand I have seen a report by professor Levi that certified the e-cat is real. but we can not be sure if he was aware of the irregular waves. There is reports of heat after dead.
      But every one agrees a solid demo is needed.
      There is always the possibility of fault play, an is in the hands of the inventor to support his claim with solid prove, specially now that is collecting money.

      • These things are widely known. Why do you feel the need to keep repeating them? If you are representative of “people who disagree with your belief’s” then, no, frankly I for one do not want to hear such voices – its very boring.

        • mcloki

          Agree with Peter. Ivan your comments are dull and don’t contribute anything but length to the posts. Like the boy who cries wolf your words carry little or no meaning. If there was an easy way to filter your posts it would greatly increase the value of the comments on this site.

          • GreenWin

            Dull, boring, inane, Ivan.

      • Filip47

        I am lets say: an optimistic – open minded – follower of LENR and the Ecat in particular.
        You must be too, otherwise you would be all over the net commenting on everything you believe are scams, like UFO’s, cropcircles, perpetume mobiles, levitations, near death experiences, etc
        If you absolutely think Mr Rossi is a scammer, you are waisting your precious time, There are a lot of scammers out there. You’ve got a lot of work to do.
        Most of the readers here are not blind either, everyone knows what you have pointed out above, it’s not a secret.
        Most of the posters here are much smarter than you and me, people who know what they are talking about. I’m learning here every day.
        I am sometimes skeptical too, when I am in a bad mood or dissapointed in a new evolution.
        But I am still hopefull. One has to be in these accellerating times.
        Barrosso said yesterday in his ‘State of the Union’ that things are changing so fast the politicians can’t catch up.
        I think that’s what’s happening here too.
        Science and technology are going to claim more and more nearly unbelieveble (r)evolutions in the near future.
        Singularity is near buddy.

        • +1

        • georgehants

          Frank please moderate if considered inappropriate.
          It is quiet today but should we all be talking just about moderation, that if it is to be worthwhile simply means removing everybody that cannot discuss a subject open-mindedly, fairly, without denial or abuse, (open or covert).
          We could be talking about the terrible harm being done to the population by the denial of the power of the Placebo Effect etc.
          There is no difference between it and Cold Fusion.
          Both are denied and abused by main-line science to the detriment of society.
          What is to be done to change the situation.
          Study demonstrates that placebo response occurs at nonconscious level
          New findings demonstrate the unconscious mind plays a key role in pain experiences

          • Robert Mockan

            Lack of information content should be the criteria for moderation. I used to helmet dive from a fishing boat catching baby sharks 1989-1990 for resale, and had conversations with fishermen on the docks. Every other word a coarse fisherman speaks seems to be a curse word or about details of the female anatomy, and that is just normal conversation. You learn to filter it out and extract the information you need, about tides, temperatures, fees, ocean conditions, competition. None of those conversations would pass moderation in any forum, much less this one, but that is reality. However colorful the language, they had useful information.

          • georgehants

            Robert, agreed it is not difficult to differentiate a person who has fair feeling for a subject but may curse a little and those who truly are unpleasant people.
            Everything in life boils down to attitude.
            One, like with everything has to be careful, one walks in a bank to be greeted by a pleasant lady who is simply being paid to sell you products designed to scam your cash.

          • georgehants

            Robert, agreed it is not difficult to differentiate a person who has fair feeling for a subject but may curse a little and those who truly are unpleasant people.
            Everything in life boils down to attitude.
            One, like with everything has to be careful, one walks in a bank to be greeted by a pleasant lady who is simply being paid to sell you bad products designed to take your cash.

          • Ron

            I’m interested in new about Rossi and others which you provide. I agree with moderation, in fact there are way too many comments as it is. I read some bet never all and too many here just go on and on. I would allow each person two comments per day. I want news and some intelligent opinion.

    • freethinker

      Frank, your efforts are highly appreciated. Thank you.

    • AllHelp

      Moderation is antithesis of openness.
      On your website, you’ll do as you please.
      In the today’s age of perception management via trolling, you’ve to be cautious.
      Your task becomes tougher day by day.
      Chevy-Volt forum, before 2012, had it right. (Green+/-Red +1s or -1s Remember?)
      Let the readers moderate.
      Also a few good ideas:
      1. Let the commenters pick an icon(emoticon-like-small)/letters to indicate their stance. Say: RB-Rossi Believer; LB-LENR Believer; LB RS-LENR Believer Rossi Scammer;
      CB-Conditional Believer…
      Or let them pick a number on a scale of 0-5 stars like Amazon (I know they have 1-5 stars) … zero being completelely distrustful & 5 being know for sure/blind faith, or alike. Run your imagination. There could be stars for each category say- LENR, Rossi, BLP, Brillouin, DFK, Ugo…

      The comments inconsistent with stated stance can be deleted by readers.

      This helps avoid re-stating “If Rossi is truthful…”

      2. Let each comment also have a few icons/radio buttons clickable, only once to flag comments as: +1, -1, Foul-Mouth, Foul-Sarcasm, Troll, AddsZero, Irrelevant & “Deletable” etc…
      Clean sarcasm by a disbeliever may receive “-100” but if it still makes an interesting comment, it will stay. But if a comment is marked deletable by 10 or say 25 people, it needs to “Hide” and can only be read by manually clicking something to open it.

      3. The people who get the most +1s ie. Say, Grinwin or RobMck, will have more of a say for deletability / their opinion counts more etc… Why? Because if a trolling agency gets in charge of this, they should not be able to circumvent the established good-guys.
      4. Finally, all this advanced community moderation helps keep your site more readable. AND makes your job virtually shrink down to 10%-25%.

      I’d have done all the programming necessary for this but you’ve moderated me in the past for bringing up the Banksters vs People topic.
      I’m sure someone will do it for you.

      But again as a reminder, LENR or Rossi is a part of the big pictue – the inevitable fight – Banks vs People.

      Have a good day.

      • Good point. The above approach is best implemented by
        1. community judges your actions and this defines your reputation
        2. your reputation defines your rights
        3. domain specific badges (Rossi believer, hater, etc.)

        stackoverflow brilliantly executed this model for a Q&A site and proved that it works fairly well. We have extended it for any type of site: community, b2c, b2b, or a mixture of the above.

  • I don’t know how you do it Frank!

  • Alexvs

    Ha, ha, ha…
    Frank, you are so good in your activity that you deserve E-Cat were real.

  • captain

    Admin, your moderation here is welcome to keep threads running nicely!
    I appreciate it, ’cause this is one of the very few places where E-Cat technology believers are living pleasantly 🙂

    In other words, better for some guys to move to other sites, since we don’t absolutely need their comments. Like it or not.

    • Daniel M. Basso

      “[…] since we don’t absolutely need their comments.”
      If you close your mind to opinions that diverge from yours, you might never find out you were actually wrong. Oh, wait, isn’t that what the scientific mainstream has done and is still doing?
      Ironic, isn’t it?

      • captain

        Yeah, it is so, unfortunately.

  • Job001

    Good job, Frank! It’s tough to be moderate. We humans tend to latch onto over-simple knowledge and models to become true believers. Perhaps we like the tribal feeling of belonging even when it’s an unhealthy gang.
    Skepticism is rife with the paradox of people failing to be skeptical of skepticism.
    Science is also prone to error assuming Occam’s rasor (normally correct yet occasionally spectacularly wrong).
    I support freedom of knowledge and religion despite the over publicized fanatics and the agenda biased.
    Keep up the good work, science needs moderates more than corrupt agenda bias.

  • clovis

    Hello, everyone,
    Frank, this is such a great web site, thanks for all your time,and work that you put in here,this sight is one i visit each day, for info, and breaking news,about e-cat, and lenr, we have so many diverse thinkers on here we do occasionally have a heated debate, but i do not like debate, it is to confrontational, i had rather just have civil conversations about things that might be helpful to dr.Rossie.
    everything else is just distracting, and blather, and mister(s) your style of conversation is not needed, and i for one believes you should be ban .
    for 3 MONTH, And if you should have a change of mind you be allowed a second chance, to be a part of this great community, i welcome civil skeptical input into conversations,with a gold of finding the truth, nothing else maters.

    • sparks

      I am sure glad Franc is the moderator, and not this guy!

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    While I’m still holding out hope, I must admit that
    news of the Swedes dropping out is devastating.

    On the other hand, continued support for LENR from
    NI chief, McKubre, and Bushnell is encouraging.

    • Warthog

      The only thing the Swedes have “dropped out on” is the new “hot E-Cat”. I don’t know if they were also intending to sell the other designs or not, but AFAIK, those are still on track.

    • Roger Bird

      Yes, Iggy, you prince among commentators. Only the Hot-Cat got a thumbs down. I have been skeptical of Rossi for quite some time. But for me, LENR and LENR-on-steroids are facts. McKubre and the University of Missouri guy were very impressive. Perhaps it will take 10 years or 5 years rather than 1 year before the damn dam of incredibility busts.

  • georgehants

    From Vortex
    Universal LENR Reactor – Fuel Preparation
    September 12, 2012 Posted by admin under Dale Basgall, Universal LENR Reactor
    Dale Basgall has released a new presentation on the mechanical aspects of preparing the fuel for the Universal LENR Reactor design. Mr. Basgall explains his review of the conditions needed for successful LENR fuel and also a proposed process for making the fuel using ISOTAN44. He considers this to be “1/3rd of the LENR process.” Mr. Basgall relies on information provided by Edmund Storms, Dennis Bushnell, Joseph Zawodny, and Francesco Celani.

  • Andrew Macleod

    Over the course of the past year and a half I have seen many sceptics argue many points and as time progresses their points change based on new information. Every step taken to prove Rossi is a fraud has turned into evidence supporting Rossi, for example the emails sent to NI. Taken out of context was used as proof of fraud all throughout dec 2011 until someone got to the bottom of things. The bottom line for me is Rossi has supplied the most solid eveidence so far.

    You have to ask yourself what does Rossi have to gain in this fraud? Money? He can’t spend it in jail! Fame? Power? Woman? What? Don’t you think he would have chosen something other than ColdFusion(junk science) to pull a fraud?

    Now ask yourself are there any people out there that would gain by defaming Rossi?

    • GreenWin

      There are many who hope to stay perched high atop their ivory towers. But won’t.

    • I think you do a terrific job, Frank. Many other moderators would not have such a balanced and intelligent touch.