Ouellette un-erased the comment by Storms, and added:
With all due respect to Dr. Storms, I stand by my post.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-against-cold-fusion/#comment-461
Perhaps she restored this in response to my last
Ouellette explained:
FYI, there have been some technical problems with the commenting system,
but as I announced at the start of the post, I am also moderating the
comment thread heavily — because every time anyone criticizes cold
fusion/low-temp nuclear reactions, the same people descend upon
The Scientific American has been, for at least 25 years, little more than
The Scientific Democrat. In other words, it is politics posing as
science. BTW: I was an adviser to Dukakis's platform committee in 88' and
I first used the term The Scientific Democrat around that time, the bias
was so
Ouellette continues to erase messages as fast as I can write them. She
erased my message linking to the comments made by Sci. Am. editors, as I
knew she would.
She will allow only skeptical attacks; no rebuttals or defense. Here is a
response I wrote to Cude, which I expect will be erased
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
The Scientific American has been, for at least 25 years, little more than
The Scientific Democrat. In other words, it is politics posing as
science.
Let's not suggest that Democrats are more likely to politicize science than
Republicans. The Republicans
I had hoped to head off your erroneous suggestion by including my
Democratic affiliation at the time I first notice SciAm's political bias.
Your comment is true but suggests that I was directing my comment toward
Democrats rather than toward Scientific American's political bias toward
the
At 03:53 PM 10/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Wow! Mary Y relays your post
!!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-against-cold-fusion/#comment-473
Jed Rothwell writes on another forum that he thinks he's being
censored so I will
Hi,
Just a thought, what would happen if you would write about the same
facts but than everything in the opposite sense?
A kind of reverse psychology method.
Kind regards,
Rob
Ah, I now see Ouelette's article was prompted by the release of the film
The Believers.
Sorry, but when I see SciAm cited, I find myself unmotivated to read the
article.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:04 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
I had hoped to head off your erroneous suggestion by
To which I responded:
Not that I can speak for Robert Park, but it is not that he is bragging
that he knows nothing, but rather that he knows who to listen to. Indeed,
this is virtually the entire history of the “cold fusion” fiasco including
the early 1990 rejection by the US editorial staff of
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Wow! Mary Y relays your post !! http://blogs.**scientificamerican.com/**
cocktail-party-physics/2012/**10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-**
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
To which I responded:
Not that I can speak for Robert Park, but it is not that he is bragging
that he knows nothing, but rather that he knows who to listen to.
Well said! Where did you write this? At the Sci. Am. site? I don't see it.
I guess she
This whole thing is comical.
Ouellette first censored a message from me pointing to a statement from *the
editor of her own magazine*. She will not allow a discussion of Sci. Am.'s
own editors' point of view! Then she turned around and allowed a skeptic to
post a copy of my message. (So far,
Ah, Ouellette deleted Yugo's copy as well.
Good grief!
- Jed
For the record, Ouellette erased this one too:
Cude wrote: “I’m not aware of a single major university that has expressed
the opinion that evidence for the claims of PF is overwhelming.”
Professors at universities and at other institutions express that opinion.
For example, the Chairman of
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
To which I responded:
Not that I can speak for Robert Park, but it is not that he is bragging
that he knows nothing, but rather that he knows who to listen to.
Well said!
What a bunch of horse shit. I'm so sorry I went to follow up, and it's
like being a Dem shouted down at a Tea party rally.
Example quote: Alas, those are ideal conditions for crackpots to
flourish. I'm not much of a debater, but what do you say to that? If you
ever study logic, this statement
17 matches
Mail list logo
