Steve I think you’ve got it right. Those who do not respond should be considered that they don’t have an argument worth defending, that their case is unsupportable and that the money for research goes to the ones who take the trouble to support their claims. What I like about it is that the reward goes to the ones who make the effort not…
Steve I think you’ve got it right. Those who do not respond should be considered that they don’t have an argument worth defending, that their case is unsupportable and that the money for research goes to the ones who take the trouble to support their claims. What I like about it is that the reward goes to the ones who make the effort not the ones who leave us high and dry. I think one very important component of it should be this must all be done in the public eye, all open for anyone to see, nothing done behind closed doors. I feel making everything public is like an insurance that protects us from nefarious intentions. It makes it so much harder to cover up omissions, errors or even manipulation. Bravo for tackling this issue.
Steve I think you’ve got it right. Those who do not respond should be considered that they don’t have an argument worth defending, that their case is unsupportable and that the money for research goes to the ones who take the trouble to support their claims. What I like about it is that the reward goes to the ones who make the effort not the ones who leave us high and dry. I think one very important component of it should be this must all be done in the public eye, all open for anyone to see, nothing done behind closed doors. I feel making everything public is like an insurance that protects us from nefarious intentions. It makes it so much harder to cover up omissions, errors or even manipulation. Bravo for tackling this issue.