On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:16 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Actually, we are getting bored by her continued repetition of the same old > arguments so we are resorting to the same methods > It's not boring but it is certainly amazing and amusing that people keep counting chickens that are as far from hatching now as they were last January. On the other hand, it's boring to hear theory after theory about *how* Rossi's machine works before it has been properly proven *that* Rossi's machine works (Rossi is creating "cold" now, is he?) . > Why do we have to keep repeating the same lines just to keep her old > points alive? ... > > You skeptics need to find real issues to harp upon instead of rehashing > the same old line....Rossi did not test it well....He is scamming...etc. Those responses are only presented when people keep insisting and writing as if Rossi's device has been properly proven to work. It most certainly has not. And the response is that Rossi *may* be scamming, not that he has been proven to be scamming -- perhaps this subtle distinction isn't clear for you because you continue to misstate the skeptical position. If determining whether Rossi's machine works or not is not a "real issue" to you, what is and why?
