I think you may be defaming Pons and Fleishmann without total justification.

There is *something* going on with what was known as "cold fusion".

It's quite possible to build an electrostatic confinement fusion reactor that will actually produce fusion neutrons in your home workshop.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/03/high_school_stu.html

I am still upset by these characterizations from "one of our own." There is no trademark on the term "endorsement" ... but I think most would agree that Conason's ability to relay accurate information is compomised. Due to .... stupidity? an agenda? laziness? I find it repugnant.

Repugnant might be too strong a word, certainly disappointed though.

Everyone makes mistakes, to err is human.

If Conason learns from his error and endeavors not to repeat it then I will forgive and forget..

It is those who deliberately, repeatedly and with malice deliver falsehoods to the public for whom I reserve repugnance.

Only to someone who's totally unaware of who Karl Rove is and how he operates. Or someone who pretends to be.

(wry grin)

Before you start with the veiled accusations of Freeperdom I suggest that you read some of my previous posts.

Give me a couple of minutes to dust off the cheetohs crumbs though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

New fusors based on Hirsch's design were first constructed in the later 1960s. Even the first test models demonstrated that the design was effective; soon they were showing production rates of up to a billion neutrons per second, and rates of up to a trillion per second have been reported.

I don't care who linked to what..

The facts remain, bioweapons are extremely difficult to produce in military grade and even more difficult to disperse over more than a very limited area.

Anyone with the knowledge to build such a weapon will know this and hence will not be scared out of their mind by the thought of terrorist bioweapons.

You can respond to the points I made or not, I don't care but there are lurkers watching.

Cracks me up how you always think you have some riveted audience out there hanging on your every post.

I always try to be entertaining ;-)

I don't know about you but when I have the opportunity to be on the board I read every post and I watch who replies with logic and facts and who shuffles BS..

I'm just assuming that everyone else does the same as I.

Also, if you parse my words carefully you will see that I'm referring to the posts of those who disagree with me when I speak of the lurkers watching, not my own.

You claimed that you answered my question regarding what else I'm wrong about.. Due to the demands of work I have not had the opportunity to read the board every day and it's quite probable I missed it..

Could you provide a link to your post detailing my errors that I may respond?

Thanks

you are a kinder person, perhaps, than i am around this.

I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

As I said, if that sort of error is repeated then I will definitely consider Conason to be far less than reliable as a source.

That what I consider to be at least nominally "my side" might be guilty of the same sort of journalistic lack of integrity as the "other side" does indeed disturb me.

http://tinyurl.com/2o3txj

I got three out of four..

The test instructions said I would be told my score in relation to other scores, I do not see that part.