Hi, First let me say I really like your enthusiasm for debunking. It is rare to see that much energy.
> Not totally wrong, just wrongly interpreted. > Then you should help the laymen and failed scientists here interpret the misinterpreted evidentiary record -- specifically, you should focus your energy on specific details of specific experiments. Keeping your argument at such a general level will only impress those already committed to the idea that cold fusion is nonsense. > Don't be silly. The field is already dead. No one cares anymore. The > credit of which you speak has already been handed out to Koonin and Lewis > and Huizenga and others. > However the final story plays out, I suspect these guys will be seen as having been overzealous in their attempts to enforce their view and as a result having lacked sufficient objectivity to make the claims they were making. > It's caught my interest. Other people become experts at video games; I've > gotten similarly addicted to cold fusion debunking. > If you're going to debunk, you should hone your skill and zoom in on specific details. I recommend reading some of David Kidwell's papers. He does a great service to us true believers by suffering our incompetence and speaking on our level rather than tossing about vague generalities. Eric
