Quote from: markdansie on June 23, 2013, 11:26:19 AM
Hi TK
You have the right to reply, just like anyone else, but I am going to put a cap on the number of reply's including hers.
One reason for doing our site was not to have extreme censorship of views, but abuse will not be tolerated. I made it clear where I stood, but I was surprised how many private emails I got that actually supported her but did not post as they were afraid of being cut down. They may be wrong, but they are also entitled to their view.
The proposed test if cancelled or fails to live up to something credible then its game all over, I want this brought to a conclusion.
Do not shoot the messenger.
Mark

I may have "right to reply" on your site, if I register, but so what? She doesn't care about the truth! She will wind up being banned or having the thread closed on your site, just as she has done so many times before, and she'll move on to some other website with her false claims, error-filled daft manuscripts,  and insults and lies about me. She was doing just fine here, in the Tar Baby thread, but when the challenges became too tough for her she acted more and more outrageously until Stefan had to ban her, in spite of several of us trying to prevent her from getting banned here! Should I register and post on every website where she carries out her campaigns? As I told you earlier, I have enough to do already without having her popping up with her lies and misrepresentations on site after site. This thread here would not even exist if she hadn't popped up on PESN with Yet Another set of false claims and broken promises and insults.

How is it that people who are utterly wrong about some factual matter, but are still "entitled to their view"? If I claim that my "thesis requires" that the Moon be made of Play-Dough with bits of Styrofoam, and I start insulting and lying about you when you point out that experimental evidence shows that it is not Play-Dough and Styrofoam at all -- I say your work as a NASA astronaut is not satisfactory and you haven't repeated the evidence I present for the Play-Dough "thesis" ....... do you still think I am entitled to my view? Because that is just what is happening here. Ainslie is lying to everyone about a lot of things, and I can illustrate them one by one, and she has NEVER been able to refute my pointing out her lies. The most recent ones, which you have posted on your site, are that my work is not "satisfactory" and that I have not repeated the Figure 3 scopeshot.

Her papers claim that the temperature of the water was 104 degrees C. Yet we now know she _never measured the temperature of the water_. Her papers claim that no measurable power is coming from the batteries. Yet analysis of her scopeshots (not Figure 3!) indicate plenty of power coming from the batteries. And on and on.

People are "entitled to their views" when they can actually support them with facts, checkable outside references, and experimental demonstrations of their own. A private email "in support" of Ainslie that does not provide you with actual support is worthless. Have these emailers actually built and tested Ainslie's circuit for themselves? Have they "done the math" to see just where her claims come from? Do they confirm her claims? I'll bet that they have not built and tested, they have not actually gone through the calculations and they do not confirm her claims experimentally. Please correct me here if I am wrong about your private emails in "support" of Ainslie.

Do you have any questions about the things I've said concerning Ainslie and her "work"? Ask and I will answer them with references, repeatable experimental demonstrations and FACTS. Ask her to provide references and demonstrations for ANYTHING that she has claimed. She cannot, and will not. Ask her to prove her contention that my work is not "satisfactory". Ask her to prove her contention that I have not repeated her ACTUAL experimental results. She cannot. Ask her to prove anything at all!

When the demonstration she has "scheduled" for six days from now doesn't happen or doesn't provide satisfactory demonstration of her major claims, what then? You don't actually think she will admit defeat and retract her nonsense and start apologizing, do you? We have all been here before, several times. The only cure for the disease that is Rosemary Ainslie is for _everyone_ that she encounters to demand that she prove her claims _before_ they give her the publicity and the forum to continue the spread.

If any "messenger" is being "shot at" around here, it is I. I am the one who has worked for _years_ at my own expense, informing people about the truth concerning Ainslie and her history and her bogus claims. And I am the one who has been most severely insulted by her, over and over, from website to website ... .yet she cannot refute anything I've said, with references, facts or demonstrations of her own. She has even taken her campaign of slander and libel against me "on the road" by contacting people who may have employed me or may do so in the future, trying to find out my real identity and trying to drag down my reputation. Yet she cannot refute me, because _she is wrong_, and anyone who actually does the work to find out, finds out the same thing.

Note the date on the screenshot below.

Notice anything interesting about the images below?

This is an image of her Paper 2 blog posting. The claim is clearly made that the circuit recharges the batteries. But there is something else.

Next is an image from the Paper 2 "official publication" on Rossi's JNP. Examine the schematics carefully and think a bit about the implications of this little "mistake".

Mark, not only does Ainslie herself lie about what she has done, but she actually gets other people to lie for her, as well.

(In case you missed the point: the first image below is the moment in the previous Video Demo when the narrator gestures to the paper schematic and the apparatus and says that this is the schematic in use and that all five mosfets are in parallel-- both lies. The second image below is the screenshot of the schematic claimed in the video -- a lie, carefully drawn by someone not Ainslie and put into the video by someone not Ainslie. The third image below is the "corrected" schematic posted by Ainslie after her deception was revealed by .99.... and it STILL contains the lie about where the FG "negative" lead is positioned. In the video and in EVERY other photo available, Ainslie has the Black ("negative") FG lead positioned at the common circuit ground where all the other probe references are connected.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k

Tk you do not have to convince me, I clearly stated that her claims were against my belief system, I agree with you, Mark E , Milehigh etc. However there has been an event where its going to be tested, and that should be the end of it.
I and many others have been banned from expressing our views on sites like Free Energy News, which really sucs, and I believe people should have the right to express their view (politely). You are correct technically, so your preaching to the choir here. But to critisize me for allowing her to reply to posts, provided its not abusive would be an abuse of free speech. No one who might think she has something would be game to post anything here because they would be mowed down,
I do not think she has anything, but I am happy to give her the opportunity to demonstrate it. Everyone then can draw their own conclusions.
So as I said do not shoot the messenger,

"Freedom of Speech" does not entitle a person to promulgate falsehoods under the guise of science. I'm not "shooting" at you, Mark, I am pointing out that Ainslie is not telling the truth and that she can also produce other people who will lie for her. Since you are hosting her present set of claims I do think that you, yourself, have some responsibility to make sure that what you are being told is the truth, and that what people are being told through your website is the truth. Ainslie is not telling the truth, in many small matters and in some very large ones.

Her continuing insults to me are just amusing, and her threats are laughable. But she has indeed tried to do me real harm by her back-channel communications, her letter-writing and phone-calling to everyone she can think of that might make use of the talents of a person like me.

She offered to give you a personal demonstration of the Figure 3 scopeshot, didn't she? Why didn't you call her bluff at that point? I don't think anyone believes she is going to manage any kind of live, streaming demonstration in six days from now.