Points 1 & 2 are not (necessarily) conflicting at all. With improved grammar they say:-
1. This persons (self proclaimed) identity is not that of a practising litigation attorney. (May or may not be true).
2. This persons (self proclaimed) identity is not his real identity. (May or may not be true).
I am no longer practicing. I believe I said in my brief bio that I am a semi-retired bum now. If I didn't, well now I did.
@TTHuxley said:
"Try reading TC's paper from that link? It is quite definitive. I'll lead you through the maths if you like and others here, notably Paradigmnoia , will fill in details and point out that they have themselves verified them experimentally."
I remember that a long time ago you said either the paper had one of the equations wrong or some other error. It it is one of the equations I would like to know which one?
Also I do not want to know the answer but I spent some time on this paper and it kinda broke the camels back on Rossi for me. I would like to know what section of the paper the correction needs to be in. Just the section. I had not looked at paper for years and it still bothers me I do not see the problem. Section please.
That was Rossi writing to Rossi or in other words sh*t writing to sh*t. Rossi is such a flaming prevaricator! And why would anyone care what Rossi thinks about the commentary regarding his moronic case?
Woodworker's real identity is a non-issue. Read what he/she wrote. Evaluate it on its own merits. If it's wrong, simply say why.
For what it's worth, I have several attorneys in the family and as friends and I know how they talk. Woodworker writes like they talk. I don't know if Woodworker is an attorney but for sure, this person is familiar with legal matters.
"Woodworker writes like they talk." Thanks (I think). Re that issue, writing/talking like a lawyer. As I previously mentioned, I started at O'Melveny & Myers. While working as a summer associate there after my second year of law school, I wrote a memo (four or five pages) for a fairly senior partner, and revised, and revised and revised and revised, etc., etc., all before giving it to her the first time (funny note: some of you may know that summer associate programs at big firms are big on entertainment, parties, etc. I was in my office on a Friday afternoon, revising, when a fairly new partner stopped by and asked me why I wasn't out partying already. I told him I was revising. He said, "get out of here" and then asked, who is is for?" I told him the partner's name and he said "keep on revising.") After 15 drafts (I shit you not), I gave it to the partner and got it back a day later. It looked as if someone had used an entire box of red pens on - the first comment on the first line was that I had used a split infinitive (I had to look up the rules when revising again). Her last comment, after commenting on just about every line, was that it was a pretty good memo for a summer associate.
You want to know why legal bills at these firms are so high: because we would spend a hour crafting a two sentence cover letter to a client, which would then be reviewed by a more senior associate and possibly a partner. A $1,500 cover letter was not unusual.
As to talking like a lawyer: you want to be very clear when you are giving a client advice. You don't want any ambiguity that can come back and bite you in the ass. You may very well want ambiguity when talking to the other side, but you still pick your words very carefully.
Quick comment, then I need to eat dead animal. I don't comment on ANY of the science, technology, etc. re: the issues involved here. I don't because (1) I am not a scientist or engineer, (2) I have not studied or familiarized myself with the science or engineering, and, most importantly (3) I don't understand most of it and won't pretend to. But IMHO it won't make a difference to the outcome of the litigation. I think that Rossi's proven fraudulent behavior, e.g., fake company, fake invoices, will doom his case. Just MHO.
I have a question for those who don't believe I am who I say I am. Will sending a copy of my bar card to a site administrator satisfy you? Happy to do so.
Quick comment, then I need to eat dead animal. I don't comment on ANY of the science, technology, etc. re: the issues involved here. I don't because (1) I am not a scientist or engineer, (2) I have not studied or familiarized myself with the science or engineering, and, most importantly (3) I don't understand most of it and won't pretend to. But IMHO it won't make a difference to the outcome of the litigation. I think that Rossi's proven fraudulent behavior, e.g., fake company, fake invoices, will doom his case. Just MHO.
I have a question for those who don't believe I am who I say I am. Will sending a copy of my bar card to a site administrator satisfy you? Happy to do so.
I usually welcome a new member I missed you. So welcome we need people like you. if I may -- kinda get the lay of the land so to speak. We have not only both sides we have all sides. It is what makes this place different.
We have a lot of carnivores and they are waiting for the end of June trial so stick please. And well some peoples mind can not be changed regardless, and we have years of trying to. Pace pace... You will get your meat, after all Dewey promised and he has not been wrong yet.
Before I drone on--- what do you think of Fred Flintstone? This is important.
However when claiming Rossi is fraudulent (which IH try to prove) a history of fraudulent tests and non-working devices claimed to work could be relevant. It would certainly matter to a Jury whether that Lugano device really worked or not.
I don't think IH has to prove fraud. The burden of proof is on Rossi since he's trying to force IH to pay him. If IH muddies the water enough with fraud accusations, that's all they need to do.
I have a question for those who don't believe I am who I say I am. Will sending a copy of my bar card to a site administrator satisfy you? Happy to do so.
I think we have seen quite enough of your CV, as far as site moderation is concerned you are not a bot. Please carry on, just turn the volume down a little and we will all get on fine.
Display More@TTHuxley said:
"Try reading TC's paper from that link? It is quite definitive. I'll lead you through the maths if you like and others here, notably Paradigmnoia , will fill in details and point out that they have themselves verified them experimentally."
I remember that a long time ago you said either the paper had one of the equations wrong or some other error. It it is one of the equations I would like to know which one?
Also I do not want to know the answer but I spent some time on this paper and it kinda broke the camels back on Rossi for me. I would like to know what section of the paper the correction needs to be in. Just the section. I had not looked at paper for years and it still bothers me I do not see the problem. Section please.
Nope. No equations wrong that I can see!
TC made an off-hand comment that the crucial exponent went all the way down to 1 for the relevant temperatures. This was part of the explanation, not the calculations (which were correct). The exponent was stated incorrectly (in this explanation). It should be more like 2. The actual value is correctly calculated by the code, so this is just TC misremembering what it should be when making a point that it is a lot less than 4.
The recalculation here will use a numerical integration
of Equation 1 for an accurate solution. This approximate
analysis shows that compared with [5] the exponent of T will
be approximately 1, rather than 4, and that therefore the actual
temperature adjustment to the Report values will be larger than
is calculated in [5].
Regards, THH
I don't think IH has to prove fraud. The burden of proof is on Rossi since he's trying to force IH to pay him. If IH muddies the water enough with fraud accusations, that's all they need to do.
IH have a counter-suit in which they claim Rossi is fraudulent. That is where Lugano might be more relevant. It is extremely unlikely Rossi could win his suit against IH, as woodworker points out. What is in the balance is whether IH will win against Rossi and recoup some or all of their money.
I'd be interested in WW's views on this though I'd doubt anyone could know which way it will go.
Looks like Rossi won't be replying to his socks for a while, but we'll still get some live commentary by the Dottore.
QuoteAndrea Rossi
June 18, 2017 at 4:05 PMKurt:
The blog will remain open to receive and publish all the comments sent by the Readers, and the Readers will be able to answer each other; on the contrary, I will not respond or publish any comment from June 26th through July 24th.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Fred Flintstone? Sorry, I grew up primarily without a television and missed out on many things most people take for granted. It was a big deal going to my grandmother's house because I could then watch Gunsmoke.
Fred Flintstone? Sorry, I grew up primarily without a television and missed out on many things most people take for granted. It was a big deal going to my grandmother's house because I could then watch Gunsmoke.
With me it was no TV early in life but lots of time at the library - it was air conditioned!
With me it was no TV early in life but lots of time at the library - it was air conditioned!
There were a few years when we didn't have a TV. One memory from that time was very distinctive. I went to school one day and everyone had suddenly just matter-of-factly gone crazy over night. They were discussing how gorillas had taken over the 1972 Olympic games and shot some athletes with machine guns, talking about it very nonchalantly.
There were a few years when we didn't have a TV. One memory from that time was very distinctive. I went to school one day and everyone had suddenly just matter-of-factly gone crazy over night. They were discussing how gorillas had taken over the 1972 Olympic games and shot some athletes with machine guns, talking about it very nonchalantly.
I remember when Kennedy was shot. We hear the news over the intercom and the teachers set up a TV in the cafeteria for us to watch the news. Afterwards at home, my family went to a friend's house so we could watch the news on TV.
That's quite enough TV, thank you.
QuoteThe blog will remain open to receive and publish all the comments sent by the Readers, and the Readers will be able to answer each other; on the contrary, I will not respond or publish any comment from June 26th through July 24th.
This means none difference, Rossi puppets and ventriloquists will work 24 hours day in his place under his directing. 
I'd rather expect zero traffic on his blog, if he will be indeed tied into his case in court....no time to ask silly questions to himself and no answers to himself...
And JPR puppet to whom will he ask for update? 
From about ten years that Blog hosts Q&A where Q. and A. are part of a comedy.
I would expect some live comments by Rossi's puppets. The JONP is to Rossi what Twitter is to Trump.
Rossi's english is better
