See, there you go again. Out of context links to things said long ago, in some kind of half-assed attempt to prove something.
Just a brief sample: GPS. Turned out that the people who were arguing with me were wrong, but I was wrong too. Although I assert that I was closer than they were. My statement that three satellites were sufficient to triangulate a point space (given arbitrarily fine precision) was correct. Others were arguing that it requires 4. It turns out GPS uses a minimum of 4, but the 4th is a ground station (not satellite) used to correct for errors, not necessary for the basic triangulation.
So that wasn't nonsense. In fact not only was I essentially correct about the geometry, I was the one who found the actual answer to that one and told everyone else.
Let's see... Rossi. At no time did I say the Rossi affair was not a hoax. I mentioned that he had sold one or two of his devices (and he had sold at least one). What of it? The U.S. navy has been looking into similar LENR reactions for decades, as have other scientists. That's a fact. Go ahead, try to refute it. In fact what I said about Rossi was wait and see.
YOUR problem is that you claim these things are nonsense, but you haven't disproved a single one of them. Why not?
It's ad-hominem. Plain and simple. By presenting these things (which YOU can nonsense, out of context), you are merely making yet another attempt at character assassination. I am not impressed.
Oh... and I was only partly wrong about the NATO rounds. The originals were exactly as I described them. It turned out that the UN declared the standard rounds too deadly, so they were changed to be heavier with a steel insert. I wasn't wrong, my information was just old. I hadn't known about the change, which occurred around 1980 or so.
So sure, I've made some small errors. And admitted them when I did. But that is only a minority of links above, which you are apparently trying to claim are all "nonsense". Like the beta decay: after some initial confusion I asked how the oscillations take place, and someone answered. I admitted that I was wrong.
You don't see the comments where I admitted I was wrong in your links above, do you? Why is that? No need to answer: the obvious answer is again that this is not an attempt at presenting factual information, it's simply an attempt to make me look bad, using underhanded (and illegitimate) tactics. Not to mention that in a lot of it I wasn't wrong at all, you just think I was.
But like I said before: this kind of shit is exactly what I have learned to expect from you.
One last thing, to anybody else who has bothered to wade through all his bullshit: ask yourselves why he's keeping a record of ALL the comments I made on Slashdot over a period of years that he thinks were wrong. Do YOU do that to people? No, you don't, do you? That's because YOU are probably a normal human being, who doesn't stalk or obsess over strangers.