Oh, bullshit. All the scientific stuff is reliable. Basic information about businesses is bound to be reliable. As long as one is not treading on a slanted political topic. Or you find a better source of information and post it.
You have to prove each case. Their articles are very thoroughly footnoted to sources. You are just setting off a paint bomb to avoid taking account of valid information. What grief do you have over the reference I cited? Any errors?
Okay, I've looked at the entry for "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions." As an opener, around 1990 I had been assigned by my manager to read and evaluate about a dozen papers on the then-novel concept of Cold Fusion. I concluded that what was going on was unexplained...but that something was going on. My reading of the Wikipedia entry is that it is a very thorough recapitulation of the history of the controversy, the setting of the physics, and the arguments on either side, with many players. I don't have a beef with it. What is your beef? Wikipedia is not a forum for opinions, however. I have nothing to add to the question. I was interested to note that the earlier claims of detected neutrons were more likely to be artifacts of the sensors. That would have been a strong claim if it had been sustained.
Another instance of balance is their entry on Halton Arp and his ideas about galactic formation. They don't denounce him; he is contrary to the prevailing school. But they don't disrespect him, either. This is not too surprising. The Big Bang school is dominant and dogmatic. They don't go into the scrupulous methods that Arp used to exclude chance correlations, and the very large number of cases he studied. One still needs to read for comprehension. But, it is not their obligation to carry a torch for Arp, either.
By "scientific stuff" I was mainly thinking of such things as the triple point of nitrogen, or the density of vanadium, etc.
All the scientific stuff is reliable. Basic information about businesses is bound to be reliable. I asked you to try an experiment, that was ignored in favor of an appeal to authority. All scientific stuff my chuff.
I guess you didn't bother to read my review. The article on LENR passed muster. I even added a test that was rigged, about Halton Arp, and that entry passed muster. How can you say I did not do the experiment? What authority did I appeal to? The only source I was comparing their entries to was my own independent research. You have an odd habit when confronted with direct testing. You demand it, and then you don't like a contrary result. You still don't explain what your beef is with Wikipedia over LENR. Do you even understand LENR? Do you have answers where the researchers don't? Do you have a scientific education? All I detect here is that nose for hopium got rubbed in reality.
There ya go.
DDPolitics is reporting that it was an 18-month plan. So the timing kind of coincides with Finland 'joining' NATO?
Hitting Finland's satellites would trigger artilce 5.
So NATO are cowards as well.
More background details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICEYE#Satellites
Don't post anything from Wikipedia please, its hopelessly compromised.
Oh, bullshit. All the scientific stuff is reliable. Basic information about businesses is bound to be reliable. As long as one is not treading on a slanted political topic. Or you find a better source of information and post it.
Wikipedia is biased garbage.
You have to prove each case. Their articles are very thoroughly footnoted to sources. You are just setting off a paint bomb to avoid taking account of valid information. What grief do you have over the reference I cited? Any errors?
Look at any article about COVID, the experimental mRNA jabs and Dr Malone or Dr McCullough . Totally bullshit propaganda. Prove me wrong.
Look at the article I presented. Prove it wrong. It was strictly informational, not political. I don't bother with articles on the topics you mention.
Then you just proved I'm right. Don't waste my time with fake Wikipedia propaganda.
Blocked.
"Basic information about businesses is bound to be reliable"
"All the scientific stuff is reliable"
An experiment for you to try out.
Search on Wikipedia for LENR, say something positive about it and then see how long its stays up.
Okay, I've looked at the entry for "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions." As an opener, around 1990 I had been assigned by my manager to read and evaluate about a dozen papers on the then-novel concept of Cold Fusion. I concluded that what was going on was unexplained...but that something was going on. My reading of the Wikipedia entry is that it is a very thorough recapitulation of the history of the controversy, the setting of the physics, and the arguments on either side, with many players. I don't have a beef with it. What is your beef? Wikipedia is not a forum for opinions, however. I have nothing to add to the question. I was interested to note that the earlier claims of detected neutrons were more likely to be artifacts of the sensors. That would have been a strong claim if it had been sustained.
Another instance of balance is their entry on Halton Arp and his ideas about galactic formation. They don't denounce him; he is contrary to the prevailing school. But they don't disrespect him, either. This is not too surprising. The Big Bang school is dominant and dogmatic. They don't go into the scrupulous methods that Arp used to exclude chance correlations, and the very large number of cases he studied. One still needs to read for comprehension. But, it is not their obligation to carry a torch for Arp, either.
By "scientific stuff" I was mainly thinking of such things as the triple point of nitrogen, or the density of vanadium, etc.
All the scientific stuff is reliable. Basic information about businesses is bound to be reliable. I asked you to try an experiment, that was ignored in favor of an appeal to authority. All scientific stuff my chuff.
I guess you didn't bother to read my review. The article on LENR passed muster. I even added a test that was rigged, about Halton Arp, and that entry passed muster. How can you say I did not do the experiment? What authority did I appeal to? The only source I was comparing their entries to was my own independent research. You have an odd habit when confronted with direct testing. You demand it, and then you don't like a contrary result. You still don't explain what your beef is with Wikipedia over LENR. Do you even understand LENR? Do you have answers where the researchers don't? Do you have a scientific education? All I detect here is that nose for hopium got rubbed in reality.
A fallacy. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority
When Russia strikes Finland thr only thing I can say is you deserve it.
Up vote for "EU Faggorty" tag.
Is that what the Kremlin wants you to tell us?
And they should.
10 days shutdown coming..