Pity - I'd like to see him try to worm himself out of this one.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
It would just have been one of those fruitless debates, pursued on one side seemingly disingenuously, where after many posts it peters out once the point has been more than made without him acknowledging that this was the case. It might even escalate at that point to full-throated pronouncement of some conspiracy theory. We can do better than this. We just have to figure out a way to raise the bar for the discussion. Tentative suggestion to Wyttenbach: don't intentionally quote things out of context when trolling is a subtext of the discussion. And a further pro tip: don't intentionally quote things out of context, period.
-
Although that does not itself prove that Rossi's device did not meet the benchmark set in the contract, it is almost as good as.
That is what I had in mind. I was simplifying somewhat. Yes, you may need more technical details than the phantom of the mezzanine to invalidate the contract. My point was: even if a close, literal reading of the contract seems to compel I.H. to pay, external factors may mean they do not have to pay. Factors such as the situation in the warehouse, the data, the quality of Penon's report, the invisible heat exchanger and so on. A contract dispute does not rest only on the words in the contract, but also on events in the real world and things like consumer protection laws. When you sign a contract to have a house built, it makes no difference how strict the contract is, or how tricky the wording. Or that you signed it in blood. Despite all that, if the roof leaks, you don't have to pay. Consumer protection laws overrule private contracts.
(I point this out because some people commenting here have the impression that contract disputes must be settled strictly and only in accordance with the wording in the contract. So if someone writes a super-tricky, super-tight contract, they can hold you to it even if the product they deliver fails to meet regulatory or common sense standards. That's not how it works. There is no such thing as an airtight contract. The contract is never the only thing that counts.)
-
Abd's message is deeply troubling. It is unfair to me. For the record, I would like to say that I am willing to work for either side, I.H. or Rossi -- or both at the same time! -- at a significant discount. I'll take $4.1 million.
-
The exhibit list Doc 289 (Rossi: 685 IH: 251 3rd P: 36 )
Quite a few photos .. maybe from the depositions exhibits. (We probably won't see them unless they are entered as evidence).
New and mysterious ones :
Photograph of Super Q-Cat
Photograph of a gentleman in a blue car
-
It might even escalate at that point to full-throated pronouncement of some conspiracy theory
Like the one explaining how master hypnotist Rossi successfully hypnotized a couple dozen scientists, engineers, investors, over the course of 10+ years, with the support of a few co-conspirators within his inner circle?
Strangely it seems to be the most supported explanation here
-
Like the one explaining how master hypnotist Rossi successfully hypnotized a couple dozen scientists, engineers, investors, over the course of 10+ years, with the support of a few co-conspirators within his inner circle?
You would have to really stretch things to call the case against Rossi a conspiracy theory. But language is indeed pretty malleable in this age of alternative facts.
-
You would have to really stretch things to call the case against Rossi a conspiracy theory.
Actually Eric, Roger isn't saying that. The case against Rossi is a case. The conspiracy suggested here** was by Rossi and 'co-conspirators.'
**With tongue in cheek, I am sure.
-
Thank you, Alan. I stand corrected.
-
Whats so awful about apostrophe's?
-
I might start becoming even more of a grammar Nazi soon Eric, . . . This most be stopped!
You grammar Nazis! As Mr. Churchill supposedly said in response to a memo telling his staff not to end a sentence with a preposition:
This is the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put.
-
Seems there was a genuine misunderstanding on Wyttenbach's part about the meaning of the sentence that he quoted within the larger context of the paragraph. He did not understand that it was Abd attempting to be humorous. I jumped to conclusions in thinking that he understood what he was reading, so my apologies for this. The kind of reading comprehension needed to pick up subtle but seemingly obvious humor is no doubt more difficult if you're not a native English speaker. I've reluctantly removed the ban.
-
Here a bunch of apostrophes so I won't have to worry about them later. ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
-
Seems there was a genuine misunderstanding on Wyttenbach's part about the meaning of the sentence that he quoted within the larger context of the paragraph. He did not understand that it was Abd attempting to be humorous.
Even a non native speaker supposed to grasp that Abd is just mocking the conspiracy theorist who accuses him to be an "APCO guy" when he writes:
I received $4.25 million dollars from APCO to promote advanced voting systems. I wish. In fact, I have received nothing to promote anything. I have never talked with anyone connected to APCO, as far as I know.
(Bold font not in original quote)
Edit: Damn, I only now notice that I used some apostrophes in my text....
-
I know the mistake seems clear as day. But knowing some of the people who have made an appearance on this forum over the last several years, I think it is safer to assume that they do not understand something like this, hard as it is to believe. People are at all levels of reading comprehension, and they shouldn't be penalized for genuine errors, although a certain perversity of character can definitely compound the problem. In this case there is concrete evidence outside of this thread to think that Wyttenbach was being sincere. It's a good reminder not to make too many assumptions.
Perhaps there should be a rule that only people with a reading comprehension above a certain level can participate. I don't know how that would work in practice.
-
I know the mistake seems clear as day. But knowing some of the people who have made an appearance on this forum over the last several years, I think it is safer to assume that they do not understand something like this, hard as it is to believe. People are at all levels of reading comprehension, and they shouldn't be penalized for genuine errors, although a certain perversity of character can definitely compound the problem. In this case there is concrete evidence outside of this thread to think that Wyttenbach was being sincere. It's a good reminder not to make too many assumptions.
I agree, and good for W too to realise his certainties may be based on misapprehension. The real issue is so many people following erroneous statements without checking.
-
Display More
The exhibit list Doc 289 (Rossi: 685 IH: 251 3rd P: 36 )
Quite a few photos .. maybe from the depositions exhibits. (We probably won't see them unless they are entered as evidence).
New and mysterious ones :
Photograph of Super Q-Cat
Photograph of a gentleman in a blue car
There are certainly a couple of exhibits which would be interesting to get a glimpse on it.
BTW, there is also in the Plaintiffs Exhibit list:
5/20/2016
Blogging communications Dewey Weaver, Eric Walker, Stefan
5/22/2016
Blogging communications Dewey Weaver and Andrea Rossi to Rigel
Is this communication on lenr-forum, and if yes, what alias did Rossi use?
And in the Defandants Exhibit list there are also several checks listed... - look yourself.
-
Abd's message is deeply troubling. It is unfair to me. For the record, I would like to say that I am willing to work for either side, I.H. or Rossi -- or both at the same time! -- at a significant discount. I'll take $4.1 million.
OK Jed, now we have established the principle, what can I get for $1.50?
-
[...]
Perhaps there should be a rule that only people with a reading comprehension above a certain level can participate. I don't know how that would work in practice.
[...]
Eric I normally appreciate your posts. In this case sorry to say but I find it hard to believe you entertain such a thought. Holy cow - this is a thread about Rossi, not Shakespeare or Wordsworth.
-
Is this communication on lenr-forum
It would have to be; I've only communicated with Dewey Weaver in forums (two of them), and in the other forum there was nothing said that would be of interest for an exhibit in the trial. Since it is in the list of plaintiffs' exhibits, I have no idea what the topic might be. Wild guess: I was arguing at one point that there were few sockpuppets here, and that if there were any, Rossi was probably not among them. (Not sure how well that conclusion has held up since that discussion.)
