On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Scientific research should not be a popularity contest, right? >> > > Perhaps it should not be, but alas, it is. We have to deal with the real > world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. That concept seems somewhat > alien to you. > Jesus Christ, you bourgeois types... the POINT is to CHANGE the World: a concept you people ARE most absolutely unfamiliar with. To be charitable. > > > *Especially* considering the funding circus that the usual 'vested >> interests' have prostituted it into (like much else in life). >> > > I doubt it. > > > >> If I were you people, this development would be almost my least concern >> at the moment. >> > > If people lose all interest in cold fusion, the research will die along > with the few scientists now doing it. > Anything real will NOT really die. Stop thinking so short-term and personal interest. > So what does this say about all those people who've insisted that we stop >> using the term 'cold fusion', because it is 'needlessly provocative'[sic] >> -- and who came up with this 'LENR' euphemism . . . >> > > I know the people who came up with the term LENR. It wasn't intended as a > euphemism but rather as a more scientifically accurate way to describe the > phenomenon. In any case, euphemisms never work. They quickly take on the > negative connotations of the word they replace. That is why people come up > with an endless series of words to describe, for example, privy, WC, > toilet, bathroom, men's room, etc. > > - Jed > > Bulldada. Evasion. Clearly so. I continue to claim hypocrisy. And you've further proved it for me, here, now, AFAIC.
