Comment by ta75757

    This is your interpretation.

Mine, and pretty much everyone else's on the thread. If everyone interprets what you say a particular way, maybe that's what it appears to mean? And if that's not what you meant, maybe you said it wrong?

    There exists no statement which says that this is a novel 
    product. In fact, there is a direct quote where it says 
    this is based on a well known scientific principle, and 
    that this is basically a battery.

This is Michael Moore logic. This is the idea that if you say something which is technically correct, but is obviously misinterpreted by many readers to mean something else, you didn't lie, because there is an alternative technical interpretation which is correct. I don't live by Michael Moore logic.

    You have just taken a "this sounds like" and turned it 
    into "a claim"; you have just invented through 
    assumptions and insinuations a problem which does not 
    exist. The idea that these people are being deceptive 
    is in your head.

Oh, come on. I was using the word claim to refer to the concept I had just described in a previous sentence. Sadly I don't know a word that means, "the idea either intentionally or naively, but either way incorrectly, implied by someone".

    You based all this perceived deceit on the technical 
    definition of the word 'power', or the phrase 'to 
    power',

No, I based it on the colloquial definition, of "to give energy to", or to "make go". Motor oil and spark plugs don't power a car, in colloquial language. Similarly, salt water does not power this lamp.

    and their lack of a complete, one-sentence description 
    of the operation of the chemical reaction which creates 
    energy in the device.

When you're selling a battery, and you refuse to call what you're selling a battery, it makes the reader rightfully suspicious. And the (paraphrased) sentence "based on the science of batteries" implies it is different than a battery, because to a casual reader, the only reason to say "based on the science of X" is that it is not the same thing as X, otherwise you would just say, "this is an X".

    In the end, they do get across fully the idea of how 
    the device works and the implications thereof. 

No, they really really don't. They just don't. I repeat: how many non-scientific readers do you think would conclude, "wow, this thing creates energy from salt water?". I would say most. An that statement is false.

    This is a textbook example of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

No, the website is a textbook example of misdirection. Similar examples: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html or if you prefer XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1481/

    And it's an incredibly long troll.

And you, sir, are a nincompoop.