Follow by Email

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

92 - for mookie - whoever he is

Well Mookie

If I didn't know better I'd guess that you have an agenda. The statement that you 'stand by what you said' can only carry water if you are also - responsible for writing that email that you allege you received. Else how would you know?

I WAS NEVER REQUIRED TO ADD THE DISCLAIMER. IT WAS FREELY OFFERED AS I DID NOT WANT CPUT'S GOOD NAME TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY POSSIBLE ADVERSE ATTENDANT CONSEQUENCES TO THIS DEMONSTRATION. THAT CAN BE EASILY VERIFIED. IT IS ON RECORD THAT THIS WAS MY OFFER - NEVER WAS IT A PRECONDITION FOR THAT DEMONSTRATION.


The reason it was offered is precisely because those such as you and your 'friend' are well able to denigrade whatever it is that you require. It is an enduring shame that what you claim is simply not based on truth. I am ever more aware of the lack of integrity that is associated with these multiple attacks that this technology is subjected to. And being alerted - I am ever more anxious to work for its recogition.

I suspect that your interest in this is also in your interest in the continued use of nuclear power. I trust that this technology will confront that need.

And may I add. The whole academic community is NOT WRONG. Nor are they right. They did not attend the demonstration. There is absolutely no part of this claim that confronts classical physics. And if I am delusional I share that delusion with those many who attended that demonstration and many others who are intimately associated with these results. Farrah is correct. In every respect. Current is the flow of charge. And that, indeed, is what we find. I suspect, with or without respect, that it is you who are delusional - if you think that we have confronted classical physics at all - anywhere. Had we done so - then outright denial of the evidence may been justified.

Rosemary