Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you > > write about it? > > Which would be in violation of Rule 2, as well. > Not at all. You can see many harsh critiques of cold fusion theory and experiments here in recent weeks, such as the debates between Beene and Storms. Rule 2 (http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html#rules) states: "Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. Debunking or "Pathological Skepticism" is banned . . . The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate." This is the standard in an academic debate at a university, a conference, or in most mainstream journals. This is how adults are supposed to discuss an academic subject. > It seems that anything (to put it politely) is on-topic here but > a critical view on LENR. I think you exaggerate, and I think you are overlooking the many vigorous debates here and harsh criticism of people such as Rossi. That pushes the list into non-worthwhile > territory for me as well. > That is a shame. Perhaps you should test this. Try offering what you a consider a valid critique, couched in a proper academic style. You will see if other people think you are breaking the rules. You will see if you can master academese. It calls for a degree of hypocritical, or false, politeness. - Jed
