another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Please DO go get taught by somebody.

Your basic knowledge of electrical and electronics theory is abysmal.

Poynt.  We've got a situation here - where you have proposed that I bring our equipment to you to measure our energy.  I'm GAME.  In fact I'm delighted.  NOW.  What you need to do is either CONFIRM that the measurement protocols outlined in our paper is correct.  Or they're not.  If you have ANY OBJECTION to what we've detailed - THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS. 

That's all.
Regards,
Rosie 

[poynt99]

Poynt.  We've got a situation here - where you have proposed that I bring our equipment to you to measure our energy.  I'm GAME.  In fact I'm delighted.  NOW.  What you need to do is either CONFIRM that the measurement protocols outlined in our paper is correct.  Or they're not.  If you have ANY OBJECTION to what we've detailed - THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS. 

That's all.
Regards,
Rosie

Sorry Rosemary, but it's not possible for you to understand your own measurements (nor anyone's measurements for that matter), when you can not even understand basic DC theory. DC theory is as simple as it gets, and you don't get it that the power polarities of the battery and load resistor in a simple DC circuit are OPPOSITE.

I gave you the opportunity to prove that you understood this, and you failed. The diagram and "problem" was simple and you failed.

Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to enter into any wager with you since you would be arguing from a standpoint that is well below or laterally way off the required target.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry Rosemary, but it's not possible for you to understand your own measurements (nor anyone's measurements for that matter), when you can not even understand basic DC theory. DC theory is as simple as it gets, and you don't get it that the power polarities of the battery and load resistor in a simple DC circuit are OPPOSITE.

I gave you the opportunity to prove that you understood this, and you failed. The diagram and "problem" was simple and you failed.

Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to enter into any wager with you since you would be arguing from a standpoint that is well below or laterally way off the required target.

You are getting vague Poynt.  Let me remind you.  We have already outlined the test parameters applied - in our paper.  IF THEY ARE WRONG - OR IF YOU INTEND APPLYING ANY OTHER MEASUREMENTS then let us know WHAT WHERE AND WHY.

Do NOT second guess what may or may not be in my mind or anyone else's. We need to look at the protocols that you INTEND APPLYING.  It's not confrontational.  It is NOT A WAGER.  It is a simple attempt at establishing those 'goal posts' that they don't get moved through this exercise.  I am MOST ANXIOUS to assure you that we are MORE THAN READY TO LET OUR APPARATUS BE SCRUTINISED MEASURED AND TESTED.  But we need to know EXACTLY what you intend testing - and what you consider as proof.  That is REASONABLE.  And I'm sure, Poynty Point that you're a reasonable sort of person.

As ever,
Rosie Pose

[poynt99]

I'm not being vague at all Rosemary.

In fact I'm being quite specific as to what minimum level of understanding YOU must have before I enter into any formal agreements with you.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I'm not being vague at all Rosemary.

In fact I'm being quite specific as to what minimum level of understanding YOU must have before I enter into any formal agreements with you.

This is getting laughable.  If you're going to evaluate our circuit Poynty - then the MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS TO KNOW WHAT MEASUREMENTS YOU INTEND APPLYING.  That has NOTHING to do with my understanding or lack of it.  It's the HONEST AND OPEN REQUIREMENT OF ANY OPEN SOURCE NEGOTIATION where the CLAIMANT MUST AT LEAST know what measurement is to be applied.   ANYTHING that I DON'T understand - TRUST me - I'll ASK.

I am not an Itseung who - poor soul - trusted his circuit to a prayer.  And then submitted it to  your's and Professor Steven E Jones' MERCY - to CRUCIFY both it and him to your heart's content.  Where you both indulged in a series of measurements that had the added disgrace of being void of ANY DEFINED TERMS WHATSOEVER.  Where his constant appeals to you both to re-evaluate those numbers is ENTIRELY IGNORED.  And this the fruits of his own hard work spanning God knows how many years.  And this just another example of the victimisation of yet another poor claimant attempting to alert you all to his work.  Where the only WONDER is that he persists in his requests with a courtesy and constraint - with a degree of politeness - that is EXEMPLARY.  Itseung is just one of the MANY claimants that you have managed to DISPATCH in a welter of obtuse arguments rendered mostly in utterly undefined ACRONYMS.  God knows why you rely on this over use.  It's removes an argument of any sense while you shroud all with implication that you're accessing some kind of HIGHER KNOWLEDGE.  All this while you do that dance of the 7 veils.

NOW.  Define your intended measurement protocols - or WITHDRAW YOUR OFFER OF A PRIZE IN ITS ENTIRETY.  I'll tell you WHY Poynt.99 RECURRING - INTO INFINITY.  It's because you may otherwise accept our measurement protocols - but reserve the right to apply your own UNDEFINED PROTOCOLS.  AS YOU PREFER.  And then.  FAG my understanding - or lack of it.  We, the readers here and your own members - will then KNOW that you're not exactly either OPEN OR ABOVE BOARD.

This nonsense about requiring that I first understand science according to POYNTY POINT.  If that is the EXPLICIT requirement then ADD THAT to your conditions of qualification.  Let's all SEE this mockery of criteria that you that you NOW require in order to DEFEAT another valid claim for that Prize of yours.   

OR if you're now saying that I DON'T qualify for your prize because I am not credentialed.  Don't worry too much.  There are many even amongst our GREATS who managed insights to progress science - without any credentials AT ALL.  And its not as if we're dealing with a major variation to the STANDARD MODEL HERE POYNTY.  Nor are we asking you to understand the thesis.  You couldn't anyway.  What we're asking you to do is simply EXPLAIN your intended measurement protocols.  THAT'S MOST CERTAINLY REQUIRED.

Regards,
Rosemary