>From Mark Gibbs
>> Look, I am sorry, > No, you're not. You can't get over your emotionality. >> ... I cannot think of a way to say that politely. > Oh, I'm sure you could if you tried. But you don't want to. Rothwell is what Rothwell does. I would suggest you get over it, particularly since who now seems to be showing just a pinch of emotionally charged defensiveness on their sleeve? ... > And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... Peter's fault? Whatever... > he originally asked "when will enter LENR such lists as > [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]?" My answer was > "When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device." A demonstrably "practical device", sure, yeah, I get that. I suspect everyone on this list gets that. But A "demonstrable testable theory"? Well, sure, it would be nice to have one of those things lying around in the laboratory. But in its absence I sure as hell wouldn't let it stop me from trying to put a little jam on my toast. That seems to be what lot of people are attempting to do these days. Obviously one of those individuals includes the highly controversial Italian, Rossi. Is Rossi and his little dog-and-pony show for real? I don't know. Hopefully, we'll know the answer to that soon. > Again, I wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question. Can you at least understand, or at least appreciate why individuals, like Mr. Rothwell, occasionally get impatient with writers who seem oblivious to the fact that they propose we need to put the cart before the horse (meaning a testable theory) as a way to prove the existence of a controversial phenomenon, like LENR? There appears to be plenty of historical examples we can point to that proves such an assertion is false. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
