From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Words have consequences
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:11:52 GMT

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Dieter Britz writes:

"Jed, if you check back, it was you who used the word "fraud", not me. I agree
that it is too strong a word, and I used words like "PR", "false-front", etc.
This is not the same. The idea I am getting across here is that the demo was
set up by someone who believes in the effect, but for the purposes of the
demo, helped it along a bit..."

Helping things along a bit is called "fraud." If it was shown that Dr. Notoya
helped the experiment along, she might well be thrown out of Hokkaido
University. If you carelessly spread rumors that she has done so, you can cause
her quite a bit of grief, as I am sure you well know. Don't be cute with me,
please, you know damn well what you said, and what you meant. You should
remember that words have consequences. These careless attacks, these offhand,
baseless accusations of fraud that have been so common during the sordid
history of CF have unjustly hurt a lot of people.

Also, it is perfectly obvious from context that I did not mean a literal
"fraud." I meant that you have been disguising your true feelings and emotions,
and pretending to be more objective and even handed than you really are. The
kind of behavior I accuse you of is not cause for dismissal at any university
or other institution. In any case, your mask was thin all along, your hostility
and unfairness has been clear to me. You just never attacked me directly
before, so I did not bother with you. As I said, I don't mind being called a
fool, but I will be damned if I let someone impute that I have deliberately
planned and executed a fraudulent experiment during an important International
Conference. I have a reputation to worry about, too, you know. What the hell
do you think my contacts at MITI would do if they heard, and believed, this
garbage you wrote? You could cost me a bundle of money, and believe me, if you
do, you *will* pay it back, in spades.

"I am sorry if I upset you, mate - maybe I laid it on a bit hard. You bring
out the worst in me, with your almost fanatical insistence that every cnf
claim must absolutely be true, no doubt..."

I gather that is an apology. If so, it is accepted. Although, as I say, if MITI
calls me and wants to know what this is all about, I will be expecting
something a heck of a lot stronger, clearer, and more direct from you to them.
In any case, the second part of this is utter nonsense, as I have frequent and
loudly pointed out dumb mistakes in various CF experiments, starting with my
own. Furthermore, I ignore most of them. I only know about a handful, that is,
the ones I am directly involved with, or have to translate for. Everyone knows
that there are dozens of marginal CF experiments. So what? I am only interested
in the good ones.

Furthermore, in practically *every* instance, I preface my statements with,
"unless Notoya is wrong" or "If the experiment works on Dec. 3." I am not the
least bit fanatical, is it *you* who are clinging to absurd ideas, and refusing
to face the reality of McKubre's sigma 90; and Notoya's recent 50 deg C Delta
T measurements, with 3 watts in. You are pretending that results like this are
marginal, when in fact, by any reasonable scientific standards, they are
*decisive*. As I see it, it is absurd that you, or any trained scientist, would
question Srinivasan's 50 experiments, or Notoya's dozen. You are saying that
people like Notoya, Enyo and Mizuno are incapable of measuring temperatures
like 20, 30 or 50 degrees. When this controversy finally comes to an end, you
will look back on this, and wonder how you could ever have dreamed they could
be wrong! How could so many people accidentally measure such high temperatures
time after time? It is absurd and impossible.

One more word about fraud. I have publicly, on several occasions, accused the
MIT group of committing fraud. I stand by that accusation. Until and unless
they demonstrate just exactly why, how and when they modified the data, I am
forced to believe they are covering up. If they explain, or apologize and
retract, I will not mention it again. In my opinion, all of the *written*
evidence points to a deliberate and willful modification of the data. I do not
make such accusations lightly. I have been in business for a long time, and I
am well aware of the legal consequences of making a baseless, undocumented
accusation. I am serious, and I know very well the consequences and power
inherent in words. As a personal aside, my parents were among the many people
directly attacked by Senator McCarthy in the early 1950s, so I know exactly
what words can do, and I take them *very* seriously. My parents, in case anyone
wonders, were attacked by McCarthy because the U.S. State Department stationed
them in the Soviet Union during the Second World War. They were attached, in
short, because they served their country under dreary and dangerous conditions
in time of war.

- Jed

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion