At least I know how to spell his name. ***Gee, that's about as semantically irrelevant as an argument can get.
He has considerable stature, yes. I don't know how much of that is justified, but it is certainly not due to his work in cold fusion. ***It was due to his work in Nuclear Physics. Are those others representative of cold fusion debunkers? How many debunkers have won their nation's highest honor due to work in Nuke Physics? How many have buildings named after them? His work stacks up just fine compared to those others. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now. >> ***I see you're changing your stance. Earlier you said it had stopped. >> >> > > Always be careful of context, semantics, and qualifiers. > > > In the context of giving credit for debunking, I said the field was > already dead, and the credit had been given. So, yes, in the perception of > the mainstream, the field is dead. > > > But, going by the peer-reviewed literature, there is manifestly still some > activity, but it has almost stopped. > > > Happy? > > > What's left now are only the mentally feeble and the scammers. >> ***Dr. Arrata is a mental giant compared to you. >> > >> > > At least I know how to spell his name. He has considerable stature, yes. I > don't know how much of that is justified, but it is certainly not due to > his work in cold fusion. Anyway, compared the Gell-Mann, Weinberg, Glashow, > Lederman, Hawking, Seaborg, he doesn't stack up so well. > > > >
