In a message dated 11/12/00 2:26:00 PM Central Standard Time,
susanb@telepath.com writes:
<< At 02:36 PM 11/12/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>DNAunion: Susan felt the need to back up her statements on cold fusion, so
I
>felt I should to. But since I no longer have Susan's e-mail, I had to
create
>one from scratch.
It's here: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/200011/0046.html
Actually the statements I was backing up were not about cold fusion per se
but about Pons and Fleischman.
you should read the websites I posted:
http://broccoli.caltech.edu/~goodstein/fusion.html
and this, an interview with Fleischman:
http://www.mv.com/ipusers/zeropoint/IEHTML/FEATURE/FEATR/297fleischmann.html
which make it clear that they and you are talking about two different kinds
of cold fusion.
Susan
**************************************
DNAunion: I understand that we are/were discussing two separate things that
both go by the same name: cold fusion. I was trying to be "complete" about
the term by showing that there is also one kind that is fact. That is, I was
indirectly suggesting that people should word their statements more
completely, since saying simply that "cold fusion couldn't be confirmed"
would be technically inaccurate (the adjective "anal retentive" has been used
to describe me by some, for some unknow reason :-) ). I just wanted to back
up my statements also to show that I wasn't pulling things out of thin air.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 12 2000 - 15:52:51 EST