I was wrong about Rossi, but what I fear most is that I might be partly right

    Quote from Alan Smith

    If you read the law Stephenrezz, you will see that saying 'in my opinion' only offers partial protection if the website publisher leaves the posts on display for any length of time.


    Wow...if that is how you translate US defamation laws, then you ABSOLUTELY are not suited as a moderator of a site that would be concerned with such laws. I suggest you leave these matters to the owner of the site until you gain a better understanding of the law. I am guessing from your gross misunderstanding of this law, you also do not understand the laws regarding satire as well in this context. Again by your logic, how would your mention of IH being the antichrist not fall under the same logic you speak of? This would ABSOLUTELY be considered defamation towards IH in your framework. =facepalm=


    EDIT: Do you also realize you would have to remove every negative remark towards IH or any member on here if what you say were true and enforceable? Do you understand that most of this forum would contain actionable legal pitfalls by all of the commentary here toward IH and other members? Wow....

    • Official Post

    I am talking about UK/EU laws which are important in the case we are discussing, even more important than US laws. There is a link above if you wish to know more. And btw, companies have a lower level of protection ( in many cases) than individuals.


    Shouting doesn't make you right you know, and btw you can depend on the other moderators to tell me if I am out of line. so far they have been incredibly supportive and do not consider me to be biased (I have enquired several times).

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I am talking about UK/EU laws which are important in the case we are discussing, even more important than US laws. There is a link above if you wish to know more. And btw, companies have a lower level of protection ( in many cases) than individuals.


    Shouting doesn't make you right you know, and btw you can depend on the other moderators to tell me if I am out of line. so far they have been incredibly supportive and do not consider me to be biased (I have enquired several times).


    Oh no...there is no changing the subject after the fact Alan, I won't fall for that trick. We were talking about US laws and you know it. Why on earth would we be talking about UK laws when this is a legal matter in the US? And as far as shouting...adding two words in caps is far from shouting...something I have seen you do many times as well. Do as I say..don't do as I do huh? I would hope your fellow moderators understand the law a bit better than you do from your responses here. Still waiting for your answer on your antichrist comment directed at IH.....


    EDIT: I am not shocked that some other moderators might not find you bias...there was a time that I did not see bias from you either....all things change...its all a matter of time.

    Quote

    ... do not think Woodford was involved when this decision was made.


    Here's the official Woodford fund reply to this issue-- I think you will see that they claim due diligence for two and a half years. I think that requires doing it on Rossi if it goes back that far, though they worked through Industrial Heat. I suppose they could have taken IH's word for it which would be equally incompetent and negligent. But like I said, CEO's don't much care. Like lawyers involved in disputes, they always win in the end. Anyway:



    https://woodfordfunds.com/blog/focus-on-long-term/


    And Rossi was specifically referenced here below, as shady and then the Fund rep wrote that they did due diligence which presumably, in context, probably did involve Rossi.



    Oh yah! Shoore!


    (same link as above)

    • Official Post

    @stephenrezz. You don't get it do you? This website has readers in the UK. That is entirely enough for an action for defamation to be brought in the UK courts by anyone anywhere in the world. It has happened before. As for bias, maybe you should ponder that your own perceptions might not be immutable?


    ETA, this was what I said to Mary and what triggered your attack i presume.


    Quote

    Stephenrenzz tried to tell me that website publishers are not liable for postings on the web. He was wrong, for the laws in America and the EU are different. And the British courts are sadly a very sympathetic gun for hire when it comes to defamation and libel cases, the fees are wonderful. A Saudi princeling recently took an American publisher to the high court in London on the grounds that a book in their catalogue had defamed him. Precisely 5 copies had been sold in the UK, but that was enough for the case to roll. I think it was settled out of court. I'm sure you get my drift.


    So that is why I am talking about UK law, which incedentally is much the same as EU law in these matters.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Here's the official Woodford fund reply to this issue-- I think you will see that they claim due diligence for two and a half years.


    Perhaps, but as I said, Woodford was not involved when the decision was made. Your statement demanded Woodford consult before offering money to Rossi. Woodford was not involved when the money was offered. To reiterate, you wrote:


    Too bad for the share holders that neither Woodford nor Darden bothered to consult these people before offering Rossi giant sums of money . . .


    Woodford could not consult before he was involved, and he did not make the offer.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    @stephenrezz. You don't get it do you? This website has readers in the UK. That is entirely enough for an action for defamation to be brought in the UK courts by anyone anywhere in the world. It has happened before. As for bias, maybe you should ponder that your own perceptions might not be immutable?


    ETA, this was what I said to Mary and what triggered your attack i presume.


    I absolutely get it...you are the one who does not. That WAS in fact the post that triggered my response because you said I am wrong. I am NOT wrong in what I posted...go back and read it again if you do not comprehend. I never spoke of UK law..UK law was not in the context of what I was speaking about...so what I said was absolutely correct...you were wrong to say I was wrong. If you want to start a new discussion about UK law, that is fine, but do not call me wrong and continue to back up that assertion. Go back and read what I said and learn from my post...I do not fall for armchair quarterbacking..either correct your mistake or knock it off Alan.

    • Official Post

    I made no mistake. You were talking about US law, I understood that and the meaning is clear in this sentence above "He was wrong, for the laws in America and the EU are different."


    I didn't know the US rules and you didn't know the UK rules. It happens and is not a surprise. But since this website is running AFAIK under EU/UK rules, those are the ones I try to use. Case closed. I am not about to be intimidated by you or indeed anyone posting here into changing my approach.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I made no mistake. You were talking about US law, I understood that and the meaning is clear in this sentence above "He was wrong, for the laws in America and the EU are different."


    I didn't know the US rules and you didn't know the UK rules. It happens and is not a surprise. But since this website is running AFAIK under EU/UK rules, those are the ones I try to use. Case closed. I am not about to be intimidated by you or indeed anyone posting here into changing my approach.


    You can't fool anyone with semantics either Alan...plain and simple you said I was wrong. You can spin it anyway you want to stroke your ego, but just because the laws in America and EU are different does not change the fact that what I posted was NOT wrong. You obviously are going to continue to support your incorrect ascertion..whatever..but I will not be intimidated by you either whether you are a moderator or not. You cannot admit you are wrong...so be it...just more proof of your lack of character to me. So yea case closed...pathetic Alan...pathetic.

    Stepherenzz, (Sifferkoll, Dewey etc.) Without saying who was right or wrong or biased, wouldn't it be easier just stop name calling, insulting and all kind of bullying, ad hominems etc.
    If someone says 'I don't care rat shit about this or that ....' it is seemingly ok nowdays in forums, but in my mind those ones I listed should never become OK. And there is a difference.

    Quote from Argon

    Stepherenzz, (Sifferkoll, Dewey etc.) Without saying who was right or wrong or biased, wouldn't it be easier just stop name calling, insulting and all kind of bullying, ad hominems etc.
    If someone says 'I don't care rat shit about this or that ....' it is seemingly ok nowdays in forums, but in my mind those ones I listed should never become OK. And there is a difference.


    I agree wholeheartedly....and I had even backed off. If you look through my posts, you will see I have no fear of name calling and insulting...this is just a forum, it comes with the territory. What I will not tolerate is a moderator telling me I am wrong about something when I am in fact correct with much smugness at that...and then liking posts that are specifically written to take personal jabs at me. Neither of those are admirable or even allowed qualities in moderators of typical forums. I admit it got under my skin, but I feel this stuff needs to be noticed even though Alan claims all the moderators are behind this new found bad behavior of his. I never had an issue with Alan until his recent antics that many are now noticing. I AGAIN will drop it at this point short of being dragged back in as I was this time by Alan SPECIFICALLY pointing out that I was wrong.

    Quote from Argon

    Stepherenzz, (Sifferkoll, Dewey etc.) Without saying who was right or wrong or biased, wouldn't it be easier just stop name calling, insulting and all kind of bullying, ad hominems etc.
    If someone says 'I don't care rat shit about this or that ....' it is seemingly ok nowdays in forums, but in my mind those ones I listed should never become OK. And there is a difference.


    I don't understand what benefit that IH derives from this line of behavior? These shenanigans cannot effect the judge or lawyers in the Rossi case. It just must be a feel better thing that these people must derive after a traumatic experience. Trauma And Distress Scale (TADS)

    Quote from axil

    I don't understand what benefit that IH derives from this line of behavior? These shenanigans cannot effect the judge or lawyers in the Rossi case. It just must be a feel better thing that these people must derive after a traumatic experience. Trauma And Distress Scale (TADS)


    What exactly are you saying? Are you implying that I am somehow connected to IH or have a vested interest? I have been a long time follower of LENR (as well as all other alternative energy - even embarrassed to say I once believed in Steorn years back) and at one time had high hopes in Rossi. Fast forward to 2016...I feel that Rossi is not being honest about his invention and the circus we now see around it. It really is as plain and simple as that...you can say I am a cheerleader for IH all you want, but the truth is I am just interested in this circus ending so we can move on to other inventors who have real work to do.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    <span style="font-size: 14pt">Abd. Next time you use the expressions 'aspie' and normie' in a post I will delete it entirely. You'll be talking about 'bloods' and 'honkies' next. Not on.</span>


    It appears that you can use "Aspie" and "Normie" in a post but I cannot. It also appears that you may have edited a post of mine without notice on the post. You routinely allow highly offensive libel and personal attack from others, and disallow actual conversation from people who know what they are talking about. That, combined with other administrative misbehaviors and incompetencies, apparently tolerated, is a bridge too far.


    I have no critical interest here. Thanks for preventing further waste of time. I get millions of page views elsewhere. Bye.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    It appears that you can use "Aspie" and "Normie" in a post but I cannot. It also appears that you may have edited a post of mine without notice on the post. You routinely allow highly offensive libel and personal attack from others, and disallow actual conversation from people who know what they are talking about. That, combined with other administrative misbehaviors and incompetencies, apparently tolerated, is a bridge too far.


    I have no critical interest here. Thanks for preventing further waste of time. I get millions of page views elsewhere. Bye.


    “Now cracks a noble heart. Good-night, sweet prince;
    And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest. ”

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.