So, your opinion is that one good scam deserves another?
Straw argument. I never said that.
My position is that the funding of the research should be proportional to results. Right now the results of Cold Fusion are 14 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more cost effective than CHF.
—————————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85822.html-———————
And my position is also that the level of invective should be proportional to the fraud involved. With CHF we’ve got hundreds of $billions pissed down a fraud rathole, a 50 year corner-turn, and nothing to show for it. with Cold Fusion we’ve got a 3 year corner-turn, only a few tens of $millions spent, and IP being bought on the open market. So if you combine the two calculations, you’ve got another 2 orders of magnitude added to the 14 where Cold Fusion is more cost effective, it is now 16 Orders Of Magnitude less fraudulent. So you should be spending way, way (16 ‘way’) more energy and effort decrying the CHF fraud.
Do ANY of your posts the first-pass sniff test of using classic fallacy argumentation? Probably not.