Display MoreIt is not my position that TC should expect feedback from real scientists, e.g., the Lugano scientists. His view perhaps differs from mine in that regard. But his argument that the Lugano scientists did not publish, and so he should not have been expected and required to publish, is also a good one.
On a forum like this, vert much so. This forum does not have the same bar for admission as academic journals. My sense is that anyone who genuinely is interested to know about the strengths and weaknesses of the Lugano report should take TC's paper, Bob Higgins's paper, and the analyses done in this forum by Paradigmnoia and others seriously.
Not 100 percent sure. Haven't met him. But that is the scenario that makes the most sense to me at the moment.
Thanks Eric. Clear enough. I do not agree of course but can see why you feel the way you do about it,
I neither have any problem with the forum since it is mostly is anonymous - I was referring to the scientists and we seem to agree there. I believe however the Lugano report was put on indefinite hold by Archivx (for reasons open to interpretation, especially since the erlier report was published), so that argument does not hold all the way. However it hardly overrules the ad-hom content of the report.
Guess we will never know if TC is real. And as long as it is not verified I will consider him a sure fake. This is the Internet you know...