the good news is that it is not specific to the question whether Science/Nature have stated more or less officially that they will not publish anything around cold fusion.
2013/12/17 Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> > Personally I don't mind Mr. Franks making a fool of himself, but I agree > that it is in violation of good ethics as it pertains to the forum rules > and should be addressed by a moderator. If he raised genuine > questions/concerns and was less blindly antagonistic it would be less of an > issue. > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:00 AM, John Franks <jf27...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's >>> inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% >>> repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper >>> conferences, attended by professionals (for and against) with questions >>> from the floor to the presenters. You're just playing at science, like a >>> children's tea party. >>> >> >> Perhaps you failed to read the rules of this forum when you joined. >> > >
