🚀 go-pugleaf

In a recent posting I reminded Jed Rothwell that

>"You posted, on behalf of Gene Mallove your colleague, a statement in early
>1992 claiming that I had deliberately ignored in Too Hot To Handle important
>positive data on neutrons that would have damaged my thesis, and that had
>been sent to me by Dr. Worledge of EPRI prior to my book. This is utterly
>false, as anyone can confirm by calling Worledge."

Jed has replied:

 >>I called Dave Worledge last week, but he was not there. He must be out of
>>town. He told Gene he sent a lot stuff to you. Maybe it got lost in the mail.
>>Why don't you call him and ask for another copy? I gather that part of it
>>described the work of Howard Menlove, of Los Alamos. Menlove did not make it
>>into the index of THTH.



So you called Worledge last week and he wasnt in. Keep calling until
he is. It is over *six months* since you posted Mallove's reckless accusations.


You suggest that the papers Mallove refers to might have been
"Lost in the mail". Is it you or Mallove that has invented this?
If you are going to be the postman for Gene Mallove, first ensure that
what you are encouraged to post has at least some chance of being credible.
Check your facts both of you. As I stated in my original objection to
Mallove, Worledge sent me four papers, which I received; these were sent
on 7 May 1991, four months AFTER the first appearance of Too Hot To Handle.
Worledge did not send me papers prior to these; the accompanying letter
from Worledge to me makes it clear that this is his first attempt to
communicate papers to me: "Several of my colleagues have informed me that
your book Too Hot To Handle contains many interesting and provocative
discussions of the early cold fusion era --- etc".

So "Lost in the Mail" is an excuse that should have been lost in the mail.
Try again, but this time get Mallove to speak for himself.


>>The issue is that you very deliberately ignore things. Even now, you are
>>deliberately ignoring everything we know about - - conservation of energy
>>- - and the roles of experimental evidence versus theory.

After your attempt to post excuses for Mallove (he of the energy non-conserving
5Gev helium) it hardly seems worth reminding you that you have *not* explained
where I said that theory rules over experiment.