Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • ***Even Jed admits that there was such an offer on JONP. That much is "real", but you're obviously using your extensive capabilities at twisting things around (while insulting) to try to make it look like I thought it was a genuine offer. And that is even AFTER I posted that it didn't MATTER whether the offer was genuine. You're not stupid. You're deliberately twisting things around. That calls into question your moral character.


    This is about the 4th or 5th time you have deliberately twisted this particular FACT around. That makes you particularly despicable.

  • It happened on JONP, even Jed admits it here upthread.


    I did not "admit" it. I declared it. I expect Dewey also remembers it was on the blog. However, he and I also agree that it did not constitute an offer. He has much more experience negotiating contracts than I do, and I (apparently) have more experience than you do. I am confident you are wrong about this. Let's drop the subject.



    Even written on a McDonald's napkin? NOPE. It was a tort.


    You missed my point. You mischaracterized this event. You wrote "the lady who got $1.5Million from McDonald's for spilling coffee on her lap while driving." She wasn't driving. She was nearly killed. She never fully recovered. Before this happened, 700 other people had been previously injured and had informed McDonalds, or sued them. Also you said $1.5 million. The suit was for $3 million, but the final settlement was secret, so who knows how much it was. All in all, the situation was very different from the way you portrayed it by saying she was "driving." If it was difficult to win this case as you say, it should not have been. Not if there is any justice. A company that injures 700 people, then nearly kills and permanently disables a person, should be forced to pay damages.


    You are not alone in misrepresenting this. The mass media and especially George Will and other pundits have grossly misrepresented the facts of the matter, claiming she was driving and claiming it was a frivolous lawsuit, and saying (in effect) 'what harm can coffee cause after all?' This is the same kind of ignorant, thoughtless treatment the mass media has afforded cold fusion all these years.


    I have some personal knowledge of this. I was severely injured by a cup of coffee when I was a small child. I have a large scar from it. Hot liquids are more dangerous than you might think.

  • Looks like around June 21-23, 2016 is the mysterious offer time.


    1. Ruby Shale June 23, 2016 at 1:45 PM

      Dr Andrea Rossi:

      IH has offered today to you in the blogs the opportunity to buy back from them your license, at some conditions.

      Can you settle on this base ?

      R.S.

    2. Andrea Rossi June 23, 2016 at 5:05 PM

      Ruby Shale:

      As usual, the guys of Industrial Heat are ready to sell what they do not own: now they are offering us to buy back our license, the license that they do not have anymore ( see the press release made few weeks ago from our Attorney John Annesser). I wonder if they will try to sell the Colosseum of Rome as well.

      IH has no more any license related to out IP and whomever is interested to us in North America, Central America, South America, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Emirates must contact exclusively:

      http://www.leonardocorporation.com

      [email protected]

      I have received other comments asking me what I think of the proposal made today by IH and this comment answers also to all the others. I will not comment further issues to be discussed in Court.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.


    1. Andrea Rossi June 23, 2016 at 3:57 PM

      Ruby Shale:

      As usually, the guys of IH are ready to sell what they do not own. Now they want to sell to us our license, offering to us to buy back the license that they do not have anymore ( see the press release of our Attorney made few weeks ago). I wonder if they will try to sell also the Colosseum of Rome.

      IH has no more any license of us and anybody that is interested to our products in North America, Central America, South America, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Emirates can contact Leonardo Corporation, either going to

      http://www.leonardocorporation.com

      or contacting

      [email protected]

      I have received other comments on the same issue, this answer is valid for all. I will not return to issues connected with facts to be discussed in Court.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

    The news release referred to above is this:


  • However, he and I also agree that it did not constitute an offer. He has much more experience negotiating contracts than I do, and I (apparently) have more experience than you do. I am confident you are wrong about this. Let's drop the subject.


    ***No. I challenge you to a debate. We can find an off-table site to debate this, let some legal experts decide it this information would have proven useful as leverage against Rossi.

  • Tork - You cannot produce anything that supports your statement that both sides agreed that there was a settlement.

    The only place this can possibly exist is in your head. I think I'm living in there also that is not what I want. Lots of cob webs and dust.

    You ought to schedule a spring cleaning.


  • You mischaracterized this event.

    ***Those are minor details, not a mischaracterization. How do you know that the event you're citing is the one I was thinking of? I notice you like to exaggerate the other side when debating. This comes close to straw argumentation and will probably some day bite you in the butt.


    You wrote "the lady who got $1.5Million from McDonald's for spilling coffee on her lap while driving." She wasn't driving. She was nearly killed. She never fully recovered. Before this happened, 700 other people had been previously injured and had informed McDonalds, or sued them. Also you said $1.5 million. The suit was for $3 million, but the final settlement was secret, so who knows how much it was.

    ***It's all just details, dude. My POINT was that it was a TORT and you've never gotten around that simple point. The incident basically serves as an analogy.


    All in all, the situation was very different from the way you portrayed it by saying she was "driving."

    ***Here, you're just wandering into commentary and la-la land and more bovine fecal matter. It was a TORT. That was my POINT.


    If it was difficult to win this case as you say, it should not have been. Not if there is any justice. A company that injures 700 people, then nearly kills and permanently disables a person, should be forced to pay damages.

    ***Here you are arguing against yourself because you said something along the lines that only written contracts are enforceable and yet, here we are talking about an unwritten contract , a TORT, that WAS enforced.




    You are not alone in misrepresenting this.

    ***It is not a misrepresentation. It is using a standard cultural refereence as an analogy.


    The mass media and especially George Will and other pundits have grossly misrepresented the facts of the matter, claiming she was driving and claiming it was a frivolous lawsuit, and saying (in effect) 'what harm can coffee cause after all?'

    ***More bovine fecal matter. Give it a rest


    This is the same kind of ignorant, thoughtless treatment the mass media has afforded cold fusion all these years.

    ***You're the one being ignorant and thoughtless because now you're arguing for the enforceability of a nonwritten contract which is against your earlier position.



    I have some personal knowledge of this. I was severely injured by a cup of coffee when I was a small child. I have a large scar from it. Hot liquids are more dangerous than you might think.

    ***Again, more and more, piling it on, more bovine fecal matter. Give it a rest. It was a TORT. That was my POINT. You're arguing against yourself at this stage.

  • Tork - You cannot produce anything that supports your statement that both sides agreed that there was a settlement.

    ***Well, dumbass, we'll assume you were too stupid to see how dumb your actual statement was, that you're trying your best to say that there never was an offer by Rossi to buy back IP on the JONP blog. But even Jed admits... er... acknowledges that this is the case. That makes you dumb at this point, which is relatively rare because I've noticed you're actually pretty smart at turning stuff around, a straw argumenter extraordinaire.


    The only place this can possibly exist is in your head. I think I'm living in there also that is not what I want. Lots of cob webs and dust.

    ***Everyone see that this just makes you a simple Adam Henry.


    You ought to schedule a spring cleaning.

    ***Don't start nuthin' won't be nuthin'. Everyone can see that you're the one who starts in on the insults. Why is that? What makes you so insecure&uncomfortable with yourself that you can't just argue your point? And then when the insults start to fly back at you, you're among the first to whine about insults! Just don't send any and there won't BE any.

  • Tork - You cannot produce anything that supports your statement that both sides agreed that there was a settlement.

    The only place this can possibly exist is in your head. I think I'm living in there also that is not what I want. Lots of cob webs and dust.

    You ought to schedule a spring cleaning.


    Upthread I said that this was the 4th or 5th time you have twisted this particular fact. Maybe it's time I started counting how many times you'll twist it before you acknowledge the simple fact that even Jed "declares" to be the case.


    This case makes #6. Let's see if you go for #7. That is how incredibly tedious you are as a participant in this forum.

    1. Ruby Shale June 23, 2016 at 1:45 PM

      Dr Andrea Rossi:

      IH has offered today to you in the blogs the opportunity to buy back from them your license, at some conditions.

      Can you settle on this base ?

      R.S.

    2. Andrea Rossi June 23, 2016 at 5:05 PM

      Ruby Shale:

      As usual, the guys of Industrial Heat are ready to sell what they do not own: now they are offering us to buy back our license, the license that they do not have anymore ( see the press release made few weeks ago from our Attorney John Annesser). I wonder if they will try to sell the Colosseum of Rome as well.

      IH has no more any license related to out IP and whomever is interested to us in North America, Central America, South America, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Emirates must contact exclusively:


    Thanks Paradigmnoia,


    If this is all there is, I do not see anything to it. Only thing that would make it interesting, would be the comment on whatever blog this Ruby Shale is referring to, where IH supposedly made an offer. And knowing Darden, there is no way in hell he would be so foolish to do such a silly thing in the middle of a $289 million lawsuit. No one in their right mind would, especially when dealing with a known shark like Rossi. Like Jed says...you do that through lawyers.


    This whole thing is laughable. This is my guess as the sequence of events:


    -Rossi wanted to put IH on the defensive, rile up his fan base by showing he was in charge (David vs Goliath), and persuade any potential jurors.


    -He unilaterely published the press release, stripping IH of their licensee/IP rights. BTW: It had as much legal standing, as if he declared himself the Queen of England.


    -he made up this sockpuppet Ruby Shale to deliver the comment about IH, to which he had his ready made answer about IH begging to deal.

  • No, it makes it something agreed to by both sides (if that is actually supported). It is suggestive of a fact.

    ***In legal parlance, it is a fact. This is about a legal case, so the legal parlance prevails, rather than bovine fecal matter parlance.


    However it does not confer any reality to the offer,

    ***A straw argument. I wasn't arguing that this offer was "real", that Rossi was being "genuine". You've fallen into the same pit that Dewey has. Regardless if this was a genuine offer, the offer was ADMISSIBLE as evidence and certainly LEVERAGEable.


    especially if no such offer can be found.

    ***Again, bovine fecal matter parlance, because even back then at the time of the thread IIRC we realized that Rossi had pulled the information from his blog.

    • Argon3 years ago

      Frank. Sorry for long post, but I suggest you to add some kind of disclaimer update above on your post. Unless something else have happened between IH and Mr Rossi, all started from few series of hypotethical questions made by me to Mr Dewey Weaver and Mr Rossi in public forums. There I with my own right interpreted that answering series of my certain way formed questions, at least neither party did not fully deny chance to solve the dispute by delicate dialogue. So they promised nor hinted nothing, they just did not right away deny possibility. (for example 'to end war, it takes two' or something)

      So there never was any real connection between the two (afaik), but then I dared to make plea to both parties. What happened, Mr Rossi censored my last question and plea slightly for the reasons I somewhat understood then. But, for some reason I don't know., after a while added statement you refer above. Either something else happened or he become suspicious or simply wanted to make message more clear to everybody by this new statement.

      All my questions had been public and purely hypothalamically asked from both individuals using this same nick (Argon).. So there is no way you can say that IH would have done offer of any kind (as long there have not been any other communication beyond my questions).

      Since things turned this wrong, and I feel played also, I'm not looking that kind of moral too lightly.

      -I for the first have posted to Mr Rossi in JONP, that I will vanish from his JONP until something tangible (from Quark-X or Court case) is shown.

      - Secondly. This is your site and I respect that, but I ask you to be honest author who does not want to mislead readers and put up disclaimer update of possible misunderstanding or misinterpretation into this news posting above (and preferably close unnecessary discussion totally in this thread if possible).

      - Thirdly If we start drawing that straight conclusions in so delegate matters, it would be worth of separate thread about the fact that if Mr Rossi interpreted that hypothetical question would have been offer from IH, why didn't he indicate to accept the my plea to consider, since that was about same buyback offer what he had asked earlier from IH (read latest interview by Mats Levan where Mr Rossi claimed offering buyback but IH had refused. I see contradiction here.)

      I have been maybe Rossi sympathizing observer before, but now want to declare myself 'wait and see observer' without taking stand on any of the sides,

      In a hope for end this insanity,

      Argon

    • 5
    • Reply
    • Share ›


  • "Fact" means real to me.

  • "Fact" means real to me.

    Please don't follow Dewey down that rabbit hole of defining language like Humpty Dumpty did.



    "I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."