Rossi v. Darden developments - Part 1

Quote from oldguy

The only reason I started visiting this forum was to see Abd's legal updates on the Rossi situation. Most of the rest of the stuff here is just idol chit chat.

I must agree!

Let's see, I could read Mr. Lomax's detailed, informative and well reasoned OPINION of the court documents or I could read the larger number of posts made on this site that troll anyone who does not pledge their first born to Rossi. (All right, that is a little verbose, but most people know what I mean.)

How many posts that support Rossi Ad nauseam are made here without any real hard evidence? Yet I guess substance does not weigh over a somewhat minor error in judgement. I have seen several people called idiot (ahem... by both sides) or possibly worse. I must say I am truly surprised that Lomax was banned without at least a warning citation.

Anyway, similar to "Old Guy", I am not interested in Axil's meanderings, Mary Yugo's occasional lecture nor the occasional "ode to Rossi". I encourage Mr. Lomax to say "sorry for calling someone an idiot" as it does the soul good to humble oneself occasionally and similarly, perhaps the moderators could meet halfway and do the same. Whether the account is locked or not, the thorn is in the saddle and needs yanked out. We are adults and hopefully of a scientific mind. Kiss and make up.... and I will even say.. "pretty please!"

LENR needs a unified front and this is not it. We do not have to agree on every aspect, every theory or even every person involved. But we should not be fueding over something such as trivial as this.

I appreciate Mr. Smith for his actual work, "gettting his hands dirty" and not just talking the talk. I also appreciate Mr. Lomax as well and this forum will be diminished by his absence. Surely this can be resolved. Do not hash it out in public. Get on the phone and call each other. (Who ever is involved. I do not know who initiated the ban)

After all, it is those in this world who think they are perfect that are making it really hard for us who are!!!

Thanks. Glad to be of service. For the record, below is the conversation that I can now read.

Quote from barty

Alternative: Please check again.

I just took a look into your user account and your account was indeed blocked twice. One because the insult which expired yesterday and one permanent.
Maybe one other team member blocked you as well after I did?

However, you should be "unbanned" now.

I'm sorry for the inconveniences...
I hope you will forgive and come back

Edit: Checked the cause and found a misconfiguration in our warning system.

Display More

Quote

Saturday, 10:55am

New

You have been warned by barty:

You were warned because of insulting a user.

Warning will expire in two days.

Display More

Quote from Shane D.

Alternative,

If someone accused me, even jokingly, of being on LSD I would also be inclined to call them an idiot. Many agree it was unfair what happened when you did just that, but it is over. Time to put that behind and get on.

Sure. However, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is in session.

It was not merely that he accused me of being on LSD, it is that he asked me a question, to which I gave the obvious answer.
MFMP: Next replication - GlowStick 5.4 aka GlowShell

If you upvote that post, it will not be a vote for incivility, but for being bold enough to state the obvious, for good humor. Don't worry. I won't take it as any kind of carte blanche. But I will take it as support for what I did here. As well, follow me. I have over a thousand followers on Quora. One here, as of now, inactive since September.

I could have given a better answer as to "why," and still might have been blocked for it. I now have better and independent evidence, but it's not for here, now.

And then he confirmed the insult. Was he warned? Others followed up with insults. Were any of them warned? We don't know, unless green ink is used. That was prior practice. Improper remarks were blanked with a warning. But by a moderator, and moderators cannot block here. And administrators obviously have little experience with blocking. Which means that the Terms of Service have been ignored for a long time, and basically forgotten.

Quote

As you, of all, well know, LENR needs all the help it can get, and there is no better place for ones opinion to be heard on the topic than right here. No way you can match the exposure, reach and impact elsewhere. LF is ground zero for formative discussion on the topic.

Ah, but we are not limited to the alleged "best place," And if this is the best place, LENR definitely needs more help! A lot more. I prefer to aim for the pages of Nature.

I am still mostly a writer in reactive mode. Stick a pile of shit in front of me, I describe it, in detail. That is not my best work, my best work is creative. And it's a lot more work, which is why I'm mostly reactive. Lazy, basically. I'd rather sit in the sun and kibbitz over life. However, once i a while, my coaches have managed to inspire me to something far better. And I use "enemies" as coaches. I thank them. So thanks, Zeus46. You helped create a door into the future.

Quote

Looking forward to your polemics again.

Mostly, they won't be here, but anyone can copy them here or link them from here, at this point. I may or may not link. That depends on the community.

Moving my work to http:coldfusioncommunity.net is causing me to focus on what is more significant than banter here. At this point, most of it is still reactive. Tiger, stripes. Leopard, spots. What is possible for humans?

Quote from zeus46

I wonder how long it will be before he starts his own sockpuppet monologue in his comments section.

How about looking again at the site?

I began with sock puppet dialog. Not monolog, that's an oxymoron. When we see a puppet theater, we don't call it a monolog, even if it's a single puppeteer. I might do it again. It's fun, and if it isn't fun, there is not much hope for it.

Those were obvious socks, one registered with a disclosure (as I did here, and, in fact, same name). The other was testing anonymous posting. Anonymous posts may be submitted., but must be approved. (And the first post of a registered user must also be approved. I will readily give more advanced privileges to known users, preferably known by their real name or established and responsible identity.

Trolling will not be approved unless an admin thinks it useful. Mostly not, they will simply be trashed, the classic advice being DNFTT, and Wikipedia's policy is RBI, Revert, Block, Ignore. For very good reason. Especially ignore. Don't insult the trolls! They are just teenagers or basement-dwellers with way too much time on their hands, and any interaction with them will encourage them. I did interact with an apparent vandal, on Wikiversity, but that's because from studying the edits, I figure out that it was a quite precocious 8-year-old kid. So I created a Playspace for him, where he could do his creative writing, and guided him and encouraged himi to stay within boundaries. It worked. He became what may have been the youngest Wikimedia Foundation sysop. And, of course, I was attacked for it!

In my training, the saying was "If they are not shooting at you, you are not doing anything wasting bullets on."

And I didn't say that about basement dwellers. Some might even be my age, in fact. They might not actually be living in a basement. Attic, maybe. One might even be a licensed physician living in a condo in San Diego. It takes all kinds.

(If he wants to contribute to condensed matter nuclear science, how about he registers on coldfusioncommunity.net and actually contributes skeptical analysis, instead of pseudoskeptical cant? He can use his real name, there is nothing to be ashamed of in being skeptical. His real name is already indelibly associated with the field.)

They thought I was a troll on Wikipedia, after all. The nerve of that Abd! Making good edits by IP with his name in the edit summary! And reverting himself "per ban." Obviously, he's just looking for attention, which we must Deny. Block the IP! Range Block a major service provider! Roll out the Edit filter to prevent this troll from signing his edits! (What? Complicating enforcement?) Roll out Revision Deletion so that only administrators can even see those good edits. (That was a bridge too far, the admin was reprimanded.)

It wasn't trolling. It was a demonstration of how banned users could make positive contributions without complicating ban enforcement. Self-enforced! It was also a reductio ad absurdem of the loss of community on Wikipedia, and the original Rule Number One, in favor of factionalism.

It was all documented on Wikiversity.

Quote from Alan Smith

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax: “It was not merely that he accused me of being on LSD....”

Not directly however. It was more a gneral enquiry as to whether anyone at your desert camp-site was using LSD. Given the epoch and the location it seemed a…

This damn spamming "meisters" really suck....

Quote from SSC

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Which difference with the disapproved Ecatworld?

Is Acland using WordPress? If so, not necessarily any difference ab initio, but differences will appear over time. One I'll state: CFC will openly welcome skeptics, and even pseudoskeptics (which is a judgment, after all) can make useful contributions. Occasionally. Within limits. However, initially, no limits, these will be developed as needed and as supported by the community. Genuine skepticism must always be more than tolerated, it is a necessity for science.

Who "disapproves" of E-catworld?

I'm seeing some new anonymous users here who seem clueless on a great deal. Have they formed quick impressions or is there something deeper going on? Ah, life is so short and there are so many mysteries!

Yes, http://coldfusioncommunity.net is, at this point, defacto my blog. However, it is an activity of Infusion Institute, Inc., a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting LENR research, and "community" really does mean community. Let's say that a meeting place has been offered in my home. All are welcome, ab initio. However, rude behavior will not be tolerated. That includes my behavior, by the way. Nobody will be ejected for respectful confrontation, and as community structure develops, procedures will be put in place to make this clear and trustworthy. Right now, "governance" is just me, though other members with administrative experience have already joined. They may be really busy, though.

Nobody has been rejected for membership. No member submission has been rejected. Hey, there are comments by another new member with some experience, on the first blog post:
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/hello-world/ ... the latest one literally made my day.

That is, I'm 72, and as those of us who have made it to that age might know, getting up in the morning can be a matter of confronting signs that the friggin body isn't working!

I have learned ways to deal with this, so that my day works, and I can even say, if I'm asked, "How are you doing?", "Never been better!."

My daughter was staying with a friend, so I didn't have to get up to take her to school. I woke up a bit early, and was, ah, processing. I picked up my iPhone and looked at my email, and I saw the notification of the comment. I literally leapt out of bed, I was so energized. @barty hit the ball out of the park.

I'd suggested a possible apology, which, as a coach, I would suggest to anyone seeking to heal a situation. It's standard, I've learned to do it even when I'm otherwise so certain I was right. Rather, I advise looking at the situation from the point of view of the other, and then, if appropriate, apologizing in that world. And not a namby-pamby, "I'm sorry you were hurt," (which can have a subtext, "too bad you are so sensitive, you really should get psychological help") but actually, "I made a mistake, I regret it, and I am committed to not repeating it." It can work miracles. Barty did better. Very simple. He thanked me. That did not merely satisfy me, it inspired me.

I will be doing most of my writing on CFC. It's much easier than wrestling with the software here. However, Barty has restored some confidence in me that there is hope for lenr-forum to become safe, if it isn't already. I will support that process as asked. "Safe" means that people can freely write, within certain clear boundaries, and if they make mistakes, they will be guided, not punished, and only true trolls and spammers, etc.. or people with major social disorders, might end up blocked, having disregarded warnings. It's rare when people are not anonymous, more common with the anonymous, which removes some normal social behaviors.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Is Exhibit 27, in the new list of exhibits, new to us?

No. It was released as part of Document 50, the Second Amended Answer. It is an IH/IPH agreement. It is document 50.27 on newvortex. (If you look at the newvortex Rossi v. Darden filespace, there is a button to display alphabetically, which will put all the files in document sequence, the document names were designed by me to do that. Otherwise upload sequence (date), the default, unfortunately, can be wonky.

Right now I'm having a yahoogroups problem with uploads not being accepted. I've been researching it. If this cannot be resolved, I will host the files elsewhere. It might be convenient to put all of them up on coldfusioncommunity. net, where they could be more easily accessed.

There is another file where the size changed, and that is also an exhibit that might have been duplicated. It's the compendium of Rossi blog posts. I have not nailed what happened there. Not much of a priority.

I have assumed that if the file size did not change, that the Exhibits were the same. That could, of course, be an error. But it's not likely.

I have not yet analyzed the new amended answer for changes; but there were changes ordered by the Judge, and this is stated as being to satisfy them. None of that was of much consequence, one wonders a bit why the judge ordered it. Maybe she felt sorry for Rossi, tossed him a bone. Something. Unless he pulls out a Wabbit, and fast, his whole case might be toast, in quite short order. He appears to be Desperately Seeking Something in discovery. Mostly what he's been doing is burying himself in paper. To be sure, maybe Darden made some mistake, somewhere, and he can then keep the case alive.

On the other hand, Discovery begins in the other direction, seriously, when Rossi files his Answer to the countercomplaint. That is where, as well, he may accept or deny IH evidence and argument. Shortly thereafter, assuming the 3rd party complaint is not dismissed -- which seems very, very unlikely to me -- discovery begins for the 3rd party defendants, once they Answer, I think.

(A defendant has two weeks to answer after a motion to dismiss is denied, and can ask for additional time if needed. IH did, for a few days.)

Coldfusioncommunity.net now has all the Rossi v. Darden case documents that had been uploaded to newvortex. Most files are annotated in the blog post (linked) that is an index to them.

There are two new files. The first (78) is the 3rd amended Answer etc from IH, per the judge's order (document 67) striking certain affirmative defenses and some redaction. As far as I know, none of the exhibits change, nor is this change particularly material, beyond new material in what is now Affirmative Defense 6, specifying corporate responsibility. Here is that Defense:

Quote

Sixth Defense
6. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, as a result of Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentations. Those fraudulent representations are pled infra. See id. ¶¶ 1-11, 32-92, 134-148 infra. As to the corporate entity or entities responsible for the acts of fraudulent misrepresentation referenced in the just-cited paragraphs, Defendants allege as follows: With one exception, the misrepresentations made by Rossi as pled in those paragraphs were in his capacity as both President of Leonardo Corporation (New Hampshire) and CEO of Leonardo Corporation (Florida), and Rossi did not purport to distinguish between when he was operating as President of Leonardo Corporation (New Hampshire) versus as CEO of Leonardo Corporation (Florida).[note 2]

Moreover, as alleged by Plaintiffs, Leonardo Corporation (New Hampshire) has been merged into Leonardo Corporation (Florida), which thereby would have assumed responsibility for the fraudulent misrepresentations of Leonardo Corporation (New Hampshire) and its President (acting in his capacity as President). The fraudulent misrepresentations of Rossi for which Leonardo Corporation (Florida) is responsible thus are that

(1) the E-Cat Unit/Plant could produce, and was producing, a very high coefficient of performance,

(2) Italian law and the Ferrara Health Office required limitations on the Validation process to the extent represented by Rossi,

(3) Leonardo and Rossi transferred all E-Cat IP to Industrial Heat and IPH,

(4) J.M. Products, Inc. (“JMP”), f/k/a J.M. Chemical Products, Inc., operated a manufacturing process in Florida to produce chemical products and had a need for steam power in connection with that process,

(5) Leonardo wanted to move the E-Cat Unit/Plant to Florida to provide steam power to “the real Customer” in Florida that had a need for steam power and to obtain government authorizations for producing additional E-Cat Units/Plants,

(6) JMP was a confidential subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c., which was interested in using the E-Cat technology, and

(7) JMP was conducting a secretive manufacturing process at the location in Doral, Florida where the E-Cat Unit/Plant was operated.

Leonardo Corporation (Florida) is also responsible, as a co-conspirator, for the fraudulent misrepresentations of the other participants in the common scheme to engage in unconscionable, unfair and deceptive acts against Industrial Heat and IPH, as alleged below.

[ Note 2]:The one exception was in connection with the License Agreement and related written instruments, which Rossi executed in his capacity as President of Leonardo Corporation (New Hampshire).

Display More

The second new document (79) is a notice of the filing of this amended Answer as ordered.

Quote from Rends

(document showing domain ownership for cold fusion community.net)

From the whois page:

Quote

Creation Date: 2013-03-05T15:47:40Z

Thanks, Rends, for pointing to confirmation of what I wrote on the blog.

Quote

I incorporated Infusion Institute in December, 2013, as a community project, intended to support Low Energy Nuclear Reaction research. The corporation is nonprofit but at this point, I am the sole incorporator. There are others who have agreed to serve on the board, but that’s not operational yet. [...]

Meanwhile, I had reserved the domain “coldfusioncommunity.net” and this was not connected with Infusion Institute.