Sakib Hasan Comments on The Torch of 2011

I posted the original "Torch of 2011" on July 19th of that year.  Within a few weeks, I received 12 comments in responce.  The last responce came over two years later.  I had not responded to it before, and beg to be excused from failing to perform that obligation at the time The comment was received.  Today I will attempt, belatedly, to perform what I regard as an obligation to respond.  I am thankful that I have reached te point where response is possible.

Sakib Hasan said...

The very heart of your writing shilst sounding agreeable at first, did not settle very well with me personally after some time. Someplace within the paragrap.  I did not pay attention.hs you were able to make me a believer but just for a while. I nevertheless have a problem with your leaps in assumptions and one would do well to fill in those breaks. In the event you actually can accomplish that, I will definitely end up being fascinated.
Its such as you learn my thoughts! You seem to grasp so much approximately this, such as you wrote the ebook in it or something. I think that you simply can do with some% to force the massage house a bit, however other than that this is magnificent blog. An excellent read. I will certainly be back.

September 15, 2013 

First let be say that I am greatful for this comment.  I have always acknowledged to myself, if not my readers that I am not the best qualified person to do the work I do in my Nuclear Green, but at the time I did it, no one rlse was doing what I thought needed to be done, and so I stepted forward to do this.    My only stipulation to my self was to base what I said on the work of scientists, and to craft a vision that rested on facts or science based speculation.  For example my claims that MSRs could be built more cheaply than Light Water Reactors is based on Research by Per Peterson and David Leblanc as well as arguments derived from Robert Hargraves.  If you are going to steal ideas, steal from the best thinkers.    But since I acknowledge my flibility, I am always willing to acknowledge errors both factual and in my reasoning.

What I need from my critics is a detailed acount of what she or he sees as my mkstakes.   It is not enough to say leaps in reasoning and missing accounts of assumptions.  I may have covered the gaps in other posts.  but it is certainly possible that I have not exploredall of my assumptions.  Nuclear Green might be considered to be fragments of s vision of a future post carbon and world in which access to energy can be justly distributed to all human beings.