The document Rennie refers to in this lecture is here:
http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf
He thought I was increasingly upset, but he was wrong. As I told him,
I think he was suffering from projection or cognitive dissonance. He
wrote to me:
"Your message is full of fresh vitriol . . ."
My response:
"You are incorrect. Perhaps you are suffering from cognitive
dissonance. I am mainly amused, and reconciled to your views. I only
hope to make use of them to push you out of the way -- politically
speaking! (I am a timid person who would never physically push
anyone.) Some people in this field, such as the late Julian
Schwinger, were upset and filled with vitriol . . ."
I also told him the following, and I sincerely meant every word:
"I appreciate the opportunity to communicate with you, and I
appreciate your forthright expression of your opinions. . . .
I am not trying to ridicule you. I am publishing your words verbatim.
I would like the world to see exactly what you think, what you have
read about cold fusion, what you know about it, and how you formed
your opinions. I want our readers to judge you by your own words.
Some readers will agree with you. Others may find your statements
ridiculous, or infuriating. . . ."
Rennie: "But then why bother to write to us at all?"
Me: "I am writing to you in order to elicit the kind of response you
have provided. You have done the field a great service by revealing
your honest opinions and the extent of your knowledge."
Like many programmers, who tend to suffer from borderline autism, I
am in the habit of saying exactly what I mean without artifice or
indirection. People such as Rennie, who are more inclined toward
politics and who enjoy ridiculing people -- as he himself said in the
lecture -- sometime assume that I am being disingenuous or that I
have some ulterior motive. They think I up to something, and they do
not believe me when I tell them exactly what I am doing, and why, or
when I express gratitude.
To put it another way, I was trying to have a technical discussion
with Rennie, and he kept injecting ridicule and sarcasm. That was
obvious at the time, and that is what he said during the lecture. I
enjoy ridicule and sarcasm as much as anyone, even when it is
directed at me, but in a technical discussion it is merely annoying.
It is a nuisance. You have to filter it out, separating each assertion into --
Category 1: The speaker means it and the assertion has technical
content, so you have to think about what it means.
Category 2. Humor. Disregard.
I was not upset by Rennie because I consider him beneath contempt,
but I was irritated by the need to separate out serious assertions
from his rather lame jokes and ridicule.
- Jed
