Mole wrote:
...I for one start getting a bit suspicious.
Me too. Aren't they behaving strangely! One would have thought that if they had such amazing data they they would be only too keen to lay it all out for examination. But no - we get:
someone logged on as JJ wrote:
Paul we have given you the result from months of hard work, and verification we do not need anyone else to check it. Thanks! What we would prefere is comments. Thanks!
which speaks for itself...
Mole wrote:
Do you have a problem with scrutiny?
It's curious that when I asked for a simple assurance I got:
SafeSpeed wrote:
In order to properly evaluate these amazing claims we need:
- [...]
- a written assurance that we are looking at comprehensive data, not a subset
- [...]
someone logged on as JJ wrote:
6. I and steve find this offensive and wonder just why you think you can demand this of us. Allude to trickery again and we will withdraw all communication.
What could possibly be the problem with providing a simple and entirely necessary assurance, I wonder?