Q-reeus wrote:You are enamored with that long-term scam-artist? My opinion on some of RM's erroneous beliefs:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=241&sid=54f13b506b0ecff60fe7d14db0092736#p6227 (and further down that thread)
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51&p=5840#p5792 (and further down that thread)
Anyone with basic physics & engineering clues should soon realize just how hopelessly flawed as a technology is his latest blazing inferno incantation of 'boundless hydrino power' scheme. And that's allowing the underlying hydrino theory has a grain of truth to it.
ok so as you probably noticed i did not respond to you because i was so shocked by what you said that i thought it best to think over how best to respond.
before doing so, i will begin by saying "I Read What You Wrote In The Links That You Gave Above and..." the moment that it became clear, in both cases, that you had not read properly what Dr Mills has written, and, thus, i was able to confirm for myself that you've made an error of judgement, i stopped reading... but i *did read what you wrote*. whilst i appreciate that it is a fantastically overwhelming 1800 page document, you say in your second post "it is important to keep an open mind" yet hypocritically begin your paragraph above with the blanket and blatant statement involving the words "scam" and "artist", whilst *at the same time* accusing me of being both incompetent and incapable of independent thought, and, crucially, incapable of using a 25-year-established skill of "knowledge discernment and inference" on which i have successfully made my livelihood in the field of Reverse-Engineering and deep protocol analysis and security threat assessment.
what particularly pissed me off about your blatant accusation of incompetence on my part was that you did not begin with the words "I Read What You Wrote and....".
ANY acknowledgement of what i wrote would have been better than you beginning with a shocking accusation of complete incompetence in my core area of expertise: empirical deduction, cross-referencing and comprehensive analysis from zero prior knowledge, aka "Black Box Reverse-Engineering".
examples include:
* I Read What You Wrote and... i strongly disagree with it for the following reasons and would like to debate them with you because i am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND.
* I Read What You Wrote and... i am being tactful and diplomatic by asking you to clarify X Y and Z because I don't understand and am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND.
* I Read What You Wrote and... I am concerned at the discrepancy between my assessment of Dr Mills and your assessment of Dr Mills... could you elaborate on why you believe I should pay attention to his work, because i am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND in light of your clear excitement and belief that theres something important here.
the fact that you did not do so - instead loudly proclaimed by inference on a public forum that i must be incompetent - not only REALLY pisses me off but also allows me to go through the following logical assessment:
* this person showed good logical reasoning skills at the beginning of this thread, and seemed to be knowledgeable. assess and associate probability of them making useful statements that should be followed up, interact with them in a useful and productive way, spend time doing so: 0.9.
* this person then made indirect accusations that i am totally incompetent, as well as made blanket statements demonstrating a lack of open-mindedness, lack of attention to detail and a failure to be able to assess comprehensive and complex documents in a field that is outside of their direct and immediate area of expertise. i know from my own experience that i am NOT incompetent at black-box reverse-engineering and knowledge inference, therefore this person's assessment must be completely false instead. they're also incredibly rude (and probably don't even realise it), leaving me with very little desire to interact with them. CONCLUSION: reassess and associate probability of them making any useful statements in the past or in the future, or any interactions being enjoyable and fun and useful and productive: 1e-6.
notice that i have not assigned you a "zero" probability: that would be "certainty", and the one thing that i have learned from bob podolski's "bill of ethics" is: certainty is a PATHOLOGICAL state of mind.
now, i would say that in a peer-reviewed mainstream setting i would expect such closed-minded and pathological behaviour, but we are a small community of people who work *outside* of mainstream science for the most part, exploring things because we want to, without necessarily having funding (or being forced to drop ideas that we would really like to explore because it would be impossible to get funding for them), and pursuing them anyway because we LOVE to do so.
to witness close-minded and blatantly rude behaviour in this SMALL community has me deeply shocked and upset - hence why i did not respond for a long time as i had to think about what to say (and whether to say it at all). i trust, Q-reese, that you will realise the harm that you've done to yourself, to me, and to the reputation and nature of this forum through the inappropriate and unthinking words that you used.