Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> In contrast, the DGT results are based on a convincing demo but not > scientific nor vetted – and are clearly part fact and part fiction. The > fiction part is troubling and self-serving. > That is a bold claim. What do you mean? What part is fiction, and how can you tell it is fiction? I agree that demo is no substitute for a test. It is inherently less convincing. I welcome this demo and I learned a lot from it, but it is not a test. - Jed
