This writer called "Kemosabe" has been posting the standard skeptical
arguments as comments to
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/oct/09/cold-science-heats-up/#c202969.
He has now shown familiarity with some rather obscure arguments that
someone who had not followed Wikipedia process woul
Why not e-mail tjgrea...@columbiatribune.com and ask him, if it does not go
against their policy, to expand the header from one of the comments. TJ
might claim that anonymity is to be protected even in comments ... and all
of that, but he might not care - if he also thinks the guy is an irrational
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> Depends on what you might call a cataclysmic event. I would consider this
> one:
>
> tentatively predicts October 13, 2010 as the tentative date for a
> fleet of extraterrestrial vehicles to hover for hours over the earth's
> principal cit
Jones Beene wrote:
Why not e-mail tjgrea...@columbiatribune.com and ask him, if it does not go
> against their policy, to expand the header from one of the comments. TJ
> might claim that anonymity is to be protected even in comments ... and all
> of that, but he might not care - if he also thin
It goes on.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/oct/11/cold-fusion/
Kemosabe is clearly someone who knows the skeptical arguments very
well. He's repeating them, even when they've been totally
deconstructed in the past. He doesn't ever present the other side,
the facts that might allow d
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> The temperature difference involved with excess heat is *usually* -- except
> for so-called heat-after-death -- a matter of a few degrees at most. In
> other words, it should have almost no effect on permeation, and, as well,
> this would not at all explain the time
6 matches
Mail list logo
