“Now cracks a noble heart. Good-night, sweet prince;
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest. ”

The basic assertion made by lenrisnotreal is backed up on this thread by some lightweight responses.

It is plain that many people who post on this site have no real comprehension of, or respect for, the role of polite and well-argued contrary opinion in keeping a field honest. lenrisnot real spent most of his time here arguing that LENR has not yet presented compelling evidence that its findings are real and advocating for higher standards and better methods. His/her arguments were specific, informed, and serious minded. Apparently this is sort of activity not welcome here. That is unfortunate. That sort of attitude is going to keep the whole LENR field held firmly in the category of pseudoscience.

I particularly deplore Director's attitude. It is the attitude of a scientific amateur who has no first-hand experience with how science actually operates. Everyone who has published scientific research agrees that withstanding tough-minded criticism (in particular from referees of submitted articles) is essential to the whole enterprise. In the end it improves research and so should be embraced. The same goes for demanding robust replications of published results before accepting them as real. Many people on this site would benefit from thinking this over and subsequently renovating their attitudes to points of view they don't agree with.

You could always come back with a new username, some day.

I do agree that the forum has become a bit less ...focussed... rather than more, despite the work of the administrator's work towards the former.

Of late, I find myself more interested in conversations (elsewhere) such as the pros and cons of Skyla + Mewtwo-GX vs. Tapu Lele-GX, or does the new Palkia-GX need too many energys to be truly useable...

But I do like to pop in for a look fairly often. Rarely a dull moment here.