Russ George <[email protected]> wrote: What’s objectionable here is to suggest that the governance of Rossi’s year > long demo has been done without the benefit of hindsight. It’s a > particularly irksome trait to suggest that Rossi et al were/are so > incompetent as to not do a good job this time with $10 million in hand to > pay for proper resources… >
Look, I.H. said that. Not us. No one here has said anything about the quality of the one-year test because the Penon report has not been released. It is impossible to say anything about the test until you read the report. You can't do science by ESP. > To suggest past efforts reflect on present efforts, even recent past when > we know money was in short supply one can ought to understand some less > than perfect work. > It could have been done better for the same amount of money. It was sloppy. It would have cost nothing to insert an SD card. Many professionals repeatedly suggested to Rossi ways that he could improve his tests. He ignored them all. > This is after all a pioneering field and to sit back in the stockade and > shoot arrows of criticism into the back of the guy out there hacking a new > trail is truly shoddy work to say the least. > No, it isn't shoddy. This is science. Critiquing work and pointing out mistakes and sloppy work is a good thing, not a bad thing. > It is a trait of the peanut gallery to imagine things out on the frontier > are more simple than they are and thus deserving of sniping critiques. > I see no sniping here. If you call it sniping to point out at Penon should have calibrated, you & I define "sniping" differently. - Jed
