#1. Since when is the Falls Church News-Press considered "mainstream media"? Circulation? 30,000! The Corner Brook Western Star in Corner Brook, Newfoundland is reported to have a weekly circulation of 36,142.

#2. The author of the article, Tom Whipple, has the following bio:(note that the copyright on the following has expired in 2010)Note: He has no experience in physics nor nuclear physics, making him an ideal journalist with no professional knowledge on the subject.

I watched the video and what I saw was a covered plastic cat box with a dim light inside and 2 wires not connected to any of the 3 multimeters or the laptop (turned off) gratuitously placed nearby. The light could be powered by Duracell; I couldn't tell. Gosh, I thought I was going to see something. I'm crestfallen.

You are acting just like one of those journalists who know nothing about what they are reporting on. I am a CRITIC not a fool. I am not the one who is The conclusion I draw about the work (that Rossi's theory is a sham ) is because NOT a single major premise presented, published, blogged and videoed has been scientifically proven. Scientific proof is not having Rossi, et al, say it works. So far, that is all they have; a theory

My criticism of this work is that there is no proof, yet you ignore that undisputed fact. There is no peer review of the work, also undisputed, yet you conclude it works. You report 1M commercial units will be made soon, but you aren't making them. If you are going to be a journalist, since you are not the researcher, you should separate the facts and the fiction. The error I believe you made is to support theory as facts and that will get you suspended from even a one-room school.

And I can't even get a free lunch.

<comment>
Surrounding a subjectMatter on hand (in this case: coldFusion), there are two(2) things, in my opinion, that are involved in a discussion:
1] Facts, or its absence.
2] Proof, or its absence.

If we all want to concentrate on the above, there is a second-layer we can dive into: confirmation and acknowledgement, or the counterpart contestation and challenge.

But we all are humans, and not cold-blooded machines, so I guess there is-, and there has always been-, room for the 3rd-item -- an item which stands out in the discussion between damir1978 and astrolabe:
3] What people want to continue to believe in.

astrolabe has a point in that nothing about coldFusion has been proven, and that's it: period, case closed, end of story; damir1978 would rather have it stated as "nothing about coldFusion has been proven yet but we are on the way there, starting 2012, and it's just a matter of time".
</comment>

P.S:
The burden-of-proof has always been on the offensive-team: damir1978 having to convince us that coldFusion works. How about switching sides, astrolabe? Why not play the offensive-team and prove to us that coldFusion cannot possibly work, now and in the future? If you want to stick to your guns, astrolabe, your offensive-team should be able to give us a touchdown. Ready with your defense, damir1978? This should be an interesting match.
;