DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote: You again do not check before replying. > You complained that DGT did not send you their data, yet now you say you > are drowning in data. >
I am not complaining that DGT has not sent me data. I don't give a damn about that. If they don't want me to know, I don't want to hear about it. I am complaining that they are making fools of themselves and presenting perfume advertisements at ICCF conferences instead of physics papers. It is embarrassing to watch. NDA. Re read. I did not say for you to give your claimed big buck friends > any NDA information other than to let them know you are convinced with what > you saw. > What would I tell them? Someone has made a claim for years but has never published a paper describing it? Any investor would dismiss that, instantly. I might as well recommend they work with Patterson or Case, despite the fact that they are dead. I mean that a person who provides no rigorous, organized information in a paper might as well not exist. Gabbing about something on Vortex does not count. > "nothing, anywhere, ever about the kind of device you plan to show at NI > Week." --You might want to read some postings on Vortex. There is even > a link to a picture of one of my devices. > I mean a scientific paper. In a proceedings or journal. I am pretty sure you know I mean that. Since I am aware of the existence of your claims, obviously I heard about them on Vortex or somewhere like that. > You assume too much. How do you know if I have funding or not and for > what? > Well you sure have complained enough about not having funding, and being forced to retire! > If DGT wants to go the NDA route then let them. > How can I stop them? If they want to make themselves look like amateurs at ICCF conferences I can't stop that either. If you want to present papers with spelling errors I can't stop that, either, unless they make me the copy editor again. You and DGC are not the only ones doing this. In cold fusion many people run around acting unprofessional, and then they get upset because people don't respect them. Papers are often filled with spelling errors, contradictions, incorrect units, incomplete thoughts, made-up-terminology and other mistakes that no scientist or engineer should make. I have probably read more papers than anyone but Storms and Britz. I know how abysmal the documents and most of the research in this field is. That is typical of science in this stage, but the people who write that are not doing themselves any favors. You do not know their or anyone else's constraints or who might be > helping them. > > And never, ever, have you offered to help write or correct one of my > papers. You have only presented attacks and criticisms...... Fact. > Oh Yes I Have. And I repeat that offer here and now. Furthermore, I have extensively edited your papers and the ones you co-authored. - Jed
