Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As AG says, it would be "hard to cock that up." It is a piece of cake. > > > I love that sort of optimism. So do scammers. > Since he not going to buy the small unit, but only look at it for a preliminary evaluation, I do not see how this could be part of a scam. The big reactor calls for a professional test, as I said. Annoying or deliberately misleading? How would you know which it is? > Since it did not mislead anyone, and it was clear to to everyone that it was sloppy, I think it was annoying. Why do you call something misleading when no one is misled? > Sure. Let's out instruments and use our fallible senses and fallible > pattern recognition. > Yes, let's pretend that astronomy was not done entirely with visual observations and simple instruments up through Tycho. Let's pretend the "The Origin of the Species" was not entirely based on observation, without a single instrument reading, as were Newton's laws. Let's pretend people did make any technology until Newton and the development of modern instruments. No metallurgy, no cities, no aqueducts, no agriculture . . . nothing. He has never shown such an effect. So you say, but you refuse to comment on the fact that the machine remained palpably how for 4 hours when it should have cooled immediately. - Jed
