On May 26, 2013, at 7:27, Robert Lynn <[email protected]> wrote:
> I find myself in a similar situation to 2011, tests that looked initially > compelling, appear with greater thought to have potentially significant > flaws. There is no need for 6 month long tests. I'm of two minds here. On one hand, I find the conspiracy theories needed to sustain suspicions of fraud a little ridonculous. On the other hand, I agree that a six month test will not add any value above the four day test if the results can be cast as an extended magical performance, even if implausibly. From a PR perspective, Rossi should cede some control over the testing if he wishes to avoid this outcome. Perhaps he should take a second look at using NDAs if there are trade secrets to be protected. If this is not acceptable, perhaps he should just be content with a kind of stealth mode (such as can be obtained at this point). Eric
