On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would not call Cude "articulate." > How could you. You said yourself, you don't read what I write. It would be presumptuous to give an opinion about something you haven't read. > As McKubre often says, I could do a better job as a cold fusion skeptic > than any of the skeptics. > It's a pity he (or you) can't do a better job as a cold fusion advocate. Because the mainstream does not believe cold fusion is real. So the skeptics are doing a pretty good job. If McKubre (or you) can do a better job as skeptics, then that just means the mainstream would be even more convinced. I'm not sure how this helps your case. I know of actual weaknesses in the experiments, whereas Cude makes up > stuff, reiterates assertions that was proved wrong in 1990, and refuses to > address substantive technical issues such as McKubre's Fig. 1. > I've not made anything up, anything I've reiterated has not been proved wrong to anyone's satisfaction except a small band of true believers, and I addressed the loading correlation twice, but how would you know, since you don't actually read what I write. > I do not think Cude is a credit to the hardcore skeptics. But then, I do > not know anyone else who is. This is like expecting someone to be a > credible spokesperson for the Flat Earth Society. > You've got this backward. The flat earth society rejects the mainstream view, just like cold fusion true believers.
