Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: Interestingly, Steorn's investors have never made a public statement or > taken the company or its officers to court and they are most certainly and > obviously a scam.
Getting back to my definition, do you have any evidence for that, where "evidence" is "objectively verifiable facts in the real world"? Or is that just your opinion? I do not mean evidence that the Steorn claim is questionable. No one disputes that. I mean evidence that it is not a mistake, and the Steorn people know the device is fake, and someone has been swindled by them. I do not mean your impression or your opinion, I mean a written statement, a confession by someone at Steorn, or a formal complaint. Perhaps they're embarrassed. > Or perhaps they still believe. That may be because they are foolish, or -- conceivably -- because it is real and they know it is. > Lack of investor complaints is not necessarily counter evidence for a > scam, especially fairly early in its development. > Are we still early in the Steorn incident? How long does it take? If lack of complaints is not evidence there is nothing wrong, then how can there be any indication there is nothing wrong? If there are complaints, it is a scam. If there are no complaints, it is a scam. As Bill Beaty wrote: "Don't trust researchers who study parapsychology. They constantly cheat and lie in order to support their strange worldviews. Very few of them have been caught at it, but it's not necessary to do so, since any fool can see that the positive evidence for psi can only be created by people who are either disturbed or dishonest." http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt - Jed
