On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sometimes it's inconvenient not to be able to use one's own identity. >> > > Then, use your own identity. If your arguments stand on their own, you can > surely stand by them. > If the arguments stand on their own, why would you need an identity? There are sometimes major inconveniences and downright nuisances, some potentially dangerous, when one uses one's own identity to expose fraud or abuse. I don't need those. There are more considerations to revealing your identity on the internet than whether or not the arguments make sense. I suppose most cold fusion advocates are "mostly harmless" (The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy says so). But there are all sorts of whackos "out there", some of whom take umbrage when their favorite sacred ox is effectively and persistently gored. The psychics who claim telekinesis, telepathy and who talk to the dead are a wealthy and powerful example. Some of these people make dozens of millions, maybe hundreds, every year. If one really wanted to, he or she could hire someone to do violence on a detractor. These people, who prey on the grieving have not the slightest morals or scruples and could be dangerous. Why risk it? It's not necessary. I notice that you argued against my call for proper blanks/calibration runs to eliminate all the ruckus about heat of evaporation of steam. Your arguments, IMO, do not stand up to scrutiny but if they did, it wouldn't matter who you are, would it? I'm sure I don't need to remind you that relying on the identity of someone who supports a claim as evidence for the claim is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". That a Nobel Laureate, Josephson thinks there's merit to homeopathy doesn't make it so. It's still one of the dumbest and lowest common denominators of junk science.
