grantmeaname wrote:Nobody respects cold fusion, and nobody here was defending it or him. So why you decided to bring up that cold fusion is unlikely is totally beyond me. It's like walking into Congress and saying that America is good. It adds nothing to the discussion and it's hardly a controversial stance.
Actually, it's more like somebody mentioning Stanley Kubrick and someone else replying "Oh, you mean that pervert who made a film version of Lolita
?" when you preferred to talk about 2001
Like it or not, people are sometimes remembered for their most infamous work(s). Also, the OP brought up the cold fusion.
I did point out that he was a respected chemist. That's a defense of the man... but I was *not* defending cold fusion.
My take is that cold fusion doesn't exist, but that it wasn't an intentional hoax either; he *believed* his results, but they were ultimately due to some sort of experimental error.
@Chrispy - Please can the personal insults.
@grantmeaname - You started it, so you need to simmer down too. While some may consider it poor taste to criticize the work of someone who just died, your first reply to Chrispy_ was uncalled for.