If your "judgements" were along the line of "his data don't support his claims", I would ha[v]e to agree with you and as I understand it, that would be a valid scientific statement.
But people like you are saying "he is a liar". They then present trash as evidence and are annoyed with me when I point out their "evidence" is trash.
THEY are making the "positive claim" here (he IS
a liar), one that needs evidence to corroberate. Haven't seen any yet.
And no, that doesn't make me "holier than the Pope", just righteous enough!
I fail to understand why my OPINION must be a "valid scientific statement". Really.
Rossi's opinion on capabilities and performance of the so-called E-Cat,
the way he presents it, IMPLIES scientific validity, mine does not.
Likewise, since I make no scientific claims, but rather present an opinion,
what you call evidence is rather information (partly factual and partly not)
relevant with regard to my opinion, which I choose to present.
You can call it "trash", if that is the attitude you prefer, but that's not what annoys me.
Your righteousness, OTOH does. Frankly, it defies its own purpose
(like Human Rights Watch does by defending terrorists), exercised by you.
Your claim of lack of evidence for Rossi being a liar just proves my point:
all you care about is being righteous, regardless of the matter of discussion,
even at the price of loosing the matter of discussion completely
and claiming the Elephant is not there, 'cause "they" can't tell you
how many liters of elephantity does it currently contain.
That is awfully troll-like
And Kiteman, of course it does not make you holier than the Pope;
You can't be holier than the Pope, that's the point about this saying,