another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello again Poynty.

I really would rather you vet our paper and not your own.  It would be rather more appropriate.  But you're right.  I have NOT read your paper and nor will I.  I can barely understand your rather exotic terminologies.  And properly and correctly you need to REPLICATE our experiment OR JUST COME AND LOOK AT A DEMONSTRATION. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I might add that I find it EXTRAORDINARY that you can determine any test from NOTHING more than your opinion.  Science, may I remind you, is determined by experimental evidence.  And that evidence has been detailed in our paper.  IF you find something lacking - then ASK.  Dear God.  You're meant to be doing a sincere evaluation of a claim for your unity prize.  And instead of addressing the issue you're rabbiting on about your opinions.  We know them.  All.  Rather too well.  Perhaps we can impose on you to check out the ACTUAL tests and NOT your assumptions about those tests.  And INDEED.  I have had some very flattering comments on those papers. 

Regards, again,
R

[david lambright]

bravo rose!, great work. i believe that even with absolute PROOF, there will be those who refuse to see it. as for me, i believe in you. i KNOW your work is real, and verified. looking forward to hear more from you. again, great work, stay in touch.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

bravo rose!, great work. i believe that even with absolute PROOF, there will be those who refuse to see it. as for me, i believe in you. i KNOW your work is real, and verified. looking forward to hear more from you. again, great work, stay in touch.

Thank you David.  I would LOVE to take full credit for this work.  But it really IS shared with the collaborators.  But I must admit.  I'm rather proud of those efforts of ours.

Take care
Kindest as ever,
Rosie

[poynt99]

Hello again Poynty.

I have NOT read your paper and nor will I.

Well there you have it folks. Rosemary clearly asked me for direction as to where she went wrong,  and you see her rather pathetic response.

Who is the one here actually in denial?

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well there you have it folks. Rosemary clearly asked me for direction as to where she went wrong,  and you see her rather pathetic response.

Who is the one here actually in denial?

.99

Are you speaking to the gallery here Poynty Point?  Are you hoping that those readers of this thread will be satisfied that there isn't some rather FRANTIC requirement on your part to DENY the evidence in the FACE OF THAT EVIDENCE?  Because, sadly, I would need to disabuse you.  We have experimental evidence that comprehensively blows the unity barrier into the DARK AGES - and it is presented with the niceties of measurement that cannot be REFUTED - based as it is on the most exceptional measuring equipment.  And that - properly - means that we are over qualified to claim your prize.

Now.  Let me presume to remind YOU about the status quo.  YOU HAVE NEVER REPLICATED OUR EXPERIMENT OTHER THAN ON A SIMULATION PROGRAM.  YOU THEN PROCEEDED TO FUDGE THOSE RESULTS IN A SPURIOUS EFFORT TO DENY THE EVIDENCE.  Your anxiety was to ASSURE ALL AND SUNDRY that there were no beneficial results.  You then presumed to attempt to ruin my reputation by widely advising all and sundry that I am half mad - and a fraud.  And RIGHT NOW you are most anxious to assure our members that there is NO MERIT in our papers.  I wonder at this excessive zeal.  Under usual circumstances any efforts - such as ours - to carefully measure and record a series of anomalous test results - would solicit NOTHING but praise.  Instead of which you appear to be trying to bury both our work and my good name - under a welter of what are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT personal attacks.  At the risk of misquoting our immortal Bard - 'something smells in the state of Denmark'.

Rosemary