Wyttie - swinging thru the neighborhood and see that you continue to post pure fiction and nonsense.
IH is mainly spending money on LENR research. Rossi will be better understanding how the legal dollars are being spent very soon. Next step is the judges ruling on the MTD.
Judge Orders Jury Trial in Rossi et al v. Darden et al Starting June 26, 2017
-
-
-
Why is I.H. complaining something is not working, if they don't want to prove it??
They did prove it. So did Rossi. His data shows that it does not work. -
Has anyone actually looked at the timeline of events?
Sifferkoll (& Rossi) have made several statements to the following effect:
IH were happy to recieve the 1st, 2nd, 3rd quarterly ERV reports. They used them to raise at least $50M from Woodford.
However, per documents linked in other threads on this site the Woodford investment in IH was finalized/signed in early May 2015. The "test" didn't start until late Feb 2015 (per Rossi's suit).
Therefore, Woodford's investment was finalized before any interim report would have been available, and it is highly likely that terms of the investment had been negotiated before the test even kicked off. They did not invest based on anything connected to Rossi's 1-year "test" (at least not any results), the timeline doesn't work.
I think Jed is also accurate in reporting that IH had concerns/issues with the test set-up and Rossi's actions during the test period, and I'm guessing there will be a formal paper trail confirming these concerns that will be part of IH's legal response.
-
I think Jed is also accurate in reporting that IH had concerns/issues with the test set-up and Rossi's actions during the test period, and I'm guessing there will be a formal paper trail confirming these concerns that will be part of IH's legal response.
I suspect that you are right in that IH had concerns. Who wouldn't with that kind of money on the line? My guess is that both IH and Rossi have kept fairly good records of their respective experiences (at least Rossi has hinted at volumes of information he has meticulously kept). So, we'll just have to wait for both sides to be presented, and then we can all continue to call the shots as we see them. I sit on the fence, but lean Rossi at the moment.
-
@W: OK, I'll bite. What is "casino theater"?
-
They did prove it. So did Rossi. His data shows that it does not work.
If you ever, yourself run a legal battle, then you should know, that claims of either party must be substantiated!
Thus neither Ross's nor I.H.'s claims count for more that a penny.
They must mutually agree to an expert, or the court denominates one.
It looks like you still sit in a church and not face to face in front of a judge.
-
Jed
That is incorrect. I.H. complained long before the ERV report was received. They complained to many people, including me.
The only complaint relevant to a contract dispute would be by one of the parties to the contract to the other in order to resolve the matter, if it cannot be resolved that way then to the court. But Jed they complained to you, why would intelligent business people do that?
I.H. is not asking for additional certification because their own experts have analyzed the performance of the reactor, and the data. Perhaps that addresses your statement?
So, why should we trust them, they don't even trust the mutually agreed nuclear scientist Penon. More to the point, why should the court trust them and reject Penon's findings. It will not be impossible, I grant you but difficult as it will not be seen as 'without bias'.
Mary
What's strange is that the so-called QuarkX is a completely impossible device. Rossi has that about as much as he has a robotic factory stashed away where nobody has ever seen or heard of it. About as much as he has certificators that require >5 years to certificate.
Currently Cold fusion/LENR is impossible. In the days of the Wright brothers 'flight was impossible. You need to move on Mary but I grant you through the disciplines of scientific discovery.
Jed
You can't talk! You are the being paid tens of thousands of dollars by Rossi. You are his agent. Everyone knows he has paid you $100,000, and he promised you $1 million more if he wins the lawsuit. You are covering it up, and you will deny it, but that just proves you are guilty.
That pretty objective, admitting you tell lies about someone you think tells lies about you. That sums up your strategy of logic so I don't know what to believe now!
Mary
It's Rossi who should do this, not IH.
Rossi was paid for the e-cat by IH, its not his anymore.
Best regards
Frank -
That pretty objective, admitting you tell lies about someone you think tells lies about you.
I don't just admit I am telling lies. I boldly declare it. I brag about it!Which means . . . ummmm . . . It isn't a lie, is it?
I mean, I don't actually know Sifferkoll is an agent of Rossi. I don't know if he accepted $100,000 and a promise of $1 million more. I mean, it could be true, but how would I know? No one has told me it isn't true. And it is written right here in the Internet, where many things are true after all. So maybe, who knows, maybe it is true after all? It's one of these things that might be true or it might not be true, and there's just no telling, but where there is smoke there is fire, and he seems suspicious, and if he did take the money that would explain everything, wouldn't it?
-
Add to the fact that he hasn't denied it and it must be true!
haha, now if only Jed had his own blog he could trump up a whole article about it and blast links to it in every thread...
-
Quote
Rossi was paid for the e-cat by IH, its not his anymore.
Perhaps you could tell Rossi and his semi-fictitious Leonardo Corporation about that? He doesn't seem to know it.
-
Add to the fact that he hasn't denied it and it must be true!
Plus, if it were true that Sifferkoll took the money, surely he would deny it. A person wouldn't admit a thing like that, after all. So if he denies it, that means it's true. That's just logic. -
Quote from "Jed"
Plus, if it were true that Sifferkoll took the money, surely he would deny it. A person wouldn't admit a thing like that, after all. So if he denies it, that means it's true. That's just logic
Looking in the mirror are we? Is this a confession?
-
Jed, that's very funny.
-
There is two kind of people here...
not believers or nay-believers...but
- people who are sure of one position because the opposite have problems...
- and people who wonder and just have a preferred position, and propose to be careful , and anyway investigate.
They key difference between (nay-)believers and true-skeptics is management of ignorance.
Anyway managing ignorance does not prevent sometime to admit some positions is practically true or false (until proven otherwise, if black-swan land).
Maybe another problem is that some people, even if supporting a practically correct position for some time, refuse to change their practical position when data changes because they fall in love with their position.
Practically there is no sure position on long term, but this does not mean that practically you cannot decide based on not so imperfect data.My perception of academic people is that they are so proud of their own position, that they refuse to have a position until there is really a high certainty, this mean very very late after it is useful.
But, and this is terrible, when they stated their position, they will be unable to surrender it until their death. Ego is the problem, and this is why I support more the greedy people who change opinion when it pays more elsewhere (assuming reality pays, which in some business like research, finance, politics, is not true), rather than people who have invested much in their opinion. -
AlainCo
You make very valid points but I think you over simplify.
There are those who see negative influences to the proper discovery process. Of course there are positive influences as well. Having a healthy balance is preferable to support unfettered scientific discovery but as you seem to say it is almost absent. So we see people like yourself choosing to ally themselves with a particular 'philosophy', In your case the dynamics of the business and investors.
I think that is flawed, as the discovery process is not held in the highest regard by investors but is secondary to making money and sometimes in maintaining existing investments. Therefore we can see immediately that making money for some will require the management and perhaps illimination of disruptive new technologies.
I have noticed a subtle change in your view and it is interesting that you should explain it in this way.
Best regards
Frank -
Jed
I don't just admit I am telling lies. I boldly declare it. I brag about it!
Which means . . . ummmm . . . It isn't a lie, is it?
Try convincing a Judge on that one. That would still be contempt of court which could carry a jail sentence. Maybe you will be able to keep Rossi company? Perhaps you could communicate by tapping on the boiler pipes.
Jed to Rossi 'tap tap....tap tap tap'. Rossi to Jed 'tap tap CLANG' Well that conversation was short and sweet!!
Best regards
Frank -
Try convincing a Judge on that one. That would still be contempt of court which could carry a jail sentence.
Don't be ridiculous! If I make a statement and then add, "What I just said is not true" "I just lied to you" that cannot be taken as a lie, or an attempt to deceive. It is obviously satire. Furthermore, I am not testifying in court, so nothing I say is contempt of court.Where do you get these weird ideas?!? How can it be contempt of court? Are you the judge? Have I been sworn in?
-
Jed
Don't be ridiculous! If I make a statement and then add, "What I just said is not true" "I just lied to you" that cannot be taken as a lie, or an attempt to deceive. It is obviously satire. Furthermore, I am not testifying in court, so nothing I say is contempt of court.
Where do you get these weird ideas?!? How can it be contempt of court? Are you the judge? Have I been sworn in?
If you think making fun of the Judge is a good idea, I'm not surprised, it fits well with the character I have of you in my mind.
At the very least it would be contempt of court. That being the case by using such devices in this forum you are holding the forum and its contributors in contempt but worse, you must have a very low opinion of yourself for stooping so low in such exchanges. And before you say well others do it so I did it too. That did not save the perpetrators of war crimes.
Grow up Jed.
Best regards
Frank -
If you think making fun of the Judge is a good idea, I'm not surprised . . .
There IS NO judge!! This is not a court. You are not a judge.Are you delusional? What makes you think that this Internet discussion group is a court of law?
At the very least it would be contempt of court. That being the case by using such devices in this forum you are holding the forum and its contributors in contempt
Statements made outside a courtroom by people who are not sworn in are never "contempt of court." If you think they are, you have no idea what you are talking about.http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=325
Quoten. there are essentially two types of contempt: a) being rude, disrespectful to the judge or other attorneys or causing a disturbance in the courtroom, particularly after being warned by the judge; b) willful failure to obey an order of the court. This latter can include failure to pay child support or alimony. The court's power to punish for contempt (called "citing" one for contempt) includes fines and/or jail time (called "imposing sanctions").
If you not actually in the courtroom, you can be as rude to the judge as you like. It's a free country.
