Thread for all discussion about "genuine/meaningless/fake" etc

[ReneZ]

Well, Rich Santacoloma could complain that his theory is not adequately addressed, and so could Gordon Rugg. How much space should every paper reserve for addressing the possible theories that it is contradicting?
Should it try to disprove them rather than bring arguments in favour of its own topic?

I find calling the paper unscientific for that reason over the top and unjustified.