another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

And for the record, NB:

I left you well enough alone Rosemary. It was YOU that came after me and OUR demanding the OUR Award.

I of course must defend the integrity of the OUR Award against any and all bogus and unsubstantiated claims, including your own.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

No Poynty Point.  To use an internet personality and yet be constructive - is to use an internet personality WISELY.  And for you to assume that it's laudable to indulge in action that would otherwise be actionable - is sad indeed.  I think there's a legal term for it.  But I'm not sure what. Certainly 'unprofessional' would be close. 

But lest we drift off topic.  May I impose on you to accede that SHOULD WE DO THAT BATTERY DRAW DOWN TEST - AND IF RESULTS PROVE THAT THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS EXCEED THE CONTROL RESULTS - THAT YOU'D ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR LIABILITIES RELATED TO THAT PRIZE?  Since you're that satisfied that we wont manage this then I'm sure you'd be happy to agree.  I'll outline the details of the required protocols - OBVIOUSLY.  But I'll do that here on these forums.  That anyone with any bright ideas or residual concerns - can put in their piece.  That way it'll be an OPEN SOURCE ENGAGEMENT.  How nice is that?

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And for the record, NB:

I left you well enough alone Rosemary. It was YOU that came after me and OUR demanding the OUR Award.

I of course must defend the integrity of the OUR Award against any and all bogus and unsubstantiated claims, including your own.

POYNTY?  HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS?  Just check out my hate blog and your ENDLESS CONTRIBUTIONS?  You've got one of those memories that expediently only accesses what it prefers.  Golly.  You guys need to look closely at what you've written there.  Thank GOD it's as disgraceful as it is.  Else people may be inclined to take it seriously.

Rosie Posie

[TinselKoala]

Lol. I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

This is your admission of error? I laugh in your face.

Please see my analysis of your GRAVE ERROR, showing that you are not a "tad out", but you are overstating your energy in the test by a factor of SEVENTY FIVE, leading to your FALSE CLAIM that the single test exceeded the battery's capacity.

OK... so you've now admitted that your calculations were wrong. NOW YOU MUST RETRACT YOUR CONCLUSION AND CLAIM.

You, Rosemary, have got to state clearly WHERE AND HOW your previous calculations were in error, and you state clearly that your conclusions based on them are WRONG.... and you have to state the correct conclusion.

This is not flaming. It's science. You make an error, fine. When the error is discovered and reported, a retraction is published. That's the way it's done. If you want to play scientist, you need to play by the rules. The real rules, not some that you make up.

[poynt99]

May I impose on you to accede that SHOULD WE DO THAT BATTERY DRAW DOWN TEST - AND IF RESULTS PROVE THAT THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS EXCEED THE CONTROL RESULTS - THAT YOU'D ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR LIABILITIES RELATED TO THAT PRIZE?  Since you're that satisfied that we wont manage this then I'm sure you'd be happy to agree.  I'll outline the details of the required protocols - OBVIOUSLY.  But I'll do that here on these forums.  That anyone with any bright ideas or residual concerns - can put in their piece.  That way it'll be an OPEN SOURCE ENGAGEMENT.  How nice is that?

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

That may be workable (that means maybe Rosemary, not yes). Let's see what you propose first.