On 12/19/2009 01:13 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Steorn only presents one piece of actually damning evidence: the jury,
I don't agree. They quote a number of well known, well respected sources saying that they have *nothing*. You may not respect the Economist or the WSJ but you can bet your bottom dollar anyone with money to invest knows of those rags, and a lot of them treat them as authorities. They also quoted some number of scientific journals. If the WSJ, the Economist, and Science (which I *think* was on the list, but I'm not sure) all say something is bogus, that's going to carry a lot of weight with a lot of people.
People listen to the media.
Yes. It's possible that early investors haven't been paid off, that, instead, they see that this is likely to pay them off. Don't assume that the investors are stupid, though some may be.
I don't. I'm in the computer business; VCs are the bedrock of our world. I know they're not stupid.
However, when it comes to technological issues, they -- many of them -- are appallingly ignorant, with a complete blank where their technical background should go. For that matter, when we get into physics, which is where Steorn is making their playground, even a lot of technical people are seriously ignorant.
And, BTW, those VCs, who are not stupid, are also not going to ignore it if a wide array of respectable journals say Steorn ain't got nuttin'. This, too, makes me wonder about that ad -- your strongly held belief that the folks at Steorn are brilliant schemers is hard to square with what I *see* in that ad.
As to Steorn's magmo skills, I have a certain amount of experience in judging technical competence, and my general conclusion is that if someone exhibits no technical competence, it's probably because they have none. If you think someone is competent despite the fact that they never show it, that's a matter of faith, not reason.
Steorn has as yet exhibited no technical competence. Concluding from this that they must be *hiding* their competency is, as I said, a faith-based, not evidence-based, conclusion.
