Sure it does. 19 years have passed. The article hasn't been influential nor has it led to a useful device.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and promoting the disreputable science.
No, it does NOT. Neither of those notions has anything whatsover to do with the facts in the article. Those facts either correctly express how nature works, or they don't. The "influentuality" of the paper is sociology...not science.
And as far as useful devices, you "hot fusion" boys have been working on THAT for a lot longer than 19 years, have soaked up TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in funding, and have not yet produced a device with a COP greater than one, much less a "useful device".
"The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and promoting the disreputable science."
And with this statement, you have talked yourself in a complete circle and back to your starting point. Let me refresh your memory:
You made the above statement previously quite a while ago. I then provided references to the scientific papers to be found at LENR/CANR. You refused to look at the data because "it would be too much work".
I then provided reference to Storms book, which provides a much condensed and more easily read and understood summary of the state of LENR science. You refused to look at the data.
You then said, "pick one paper and defend it", which I have done. And you now refuse to look at that paper and address the facts therein. And then repeat once again that the burden of proof is "on me".
That, dear boy, is intellectual dishonesty of argument. You are a disgrace to whatever institution granted your degree or degrees.