James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: There is nothing for them to explain. >> > > That may be the case and if so one would not expect to see an explanation > in the paper itself. On the other hand, given the controversial > environment they might reasonably be expected to say something like the > following, at least in an interview if not in the paper itself . . . >
You cannot expect them to say everything in the paper. If they were to stop and conduct interviews for every objection raised by skeptics they would be interviewing 12 hours a day, and they would get nothing else done. They should only address rational objections, whether these objections are raised by skeptics or supporters. The skeptics do not deserve extra attention or mollycoddling. Most of their ideas have no merit and are not worth a response, such as the notion that 3-phase electricity is difficult to measure. - Jed
