Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from LLTL

sigmoidal

So arguing legalities, that's your ultimate proof of Rossi's crimes. That's a incredible weak case, especially when IH cashed an investment of 50 million dollar while the 1MW test was running.

So you are basically saying that he has a working 1MW reactor but he didn't follow the signed contract by the letter.

Rossi doesn't have a history of deception, that's why you just made up. Being cautious about your IP isn't illegal behaviour.

And BTW you didn't answer my questions.

Display More

No, you specifically proposed that people must explain that when they word 'scam' or 'scammer' they must explain how this was true of Rossi for the past six years. I am asserting that your proposal is absurd. As evidence, I point out that that is exactly what IH asserts, and I also used evidence from Rossi himself showing that he went to great lengths to intentionally decieve IH. If you disagree, your disagreement is with IH and/or Rossi, not merely me.

Also, you imply that when using the word 'scam', people are not providing adequate evidence to use that term. While this is more reasonable, I assert that it is irrelevant. By in large the use of the word is accompanied by very specific evidence supporting the 'scam' tag on this thread.

And I would say that you are either ignorant or delusional if you claim that Rossi does not have a history of deception. And your accusation that I 'just made that up' is patently false.

I am definitely not 'basically saying that he has a working 1MW reactor'. I believe there is ample evidence that it produced nothing remotely close to that, rather, something more like 20KW. You made that up (about my 'basic sayings') - please stop doing that.

And the evidence I cite regarding Rossi's scams has nothing to do with Rossi 'being cautious about his IP' and I have never equated that as suggesting 'illegal behaviour' by Rossi. (He's produced plenty of evidence quite apart from that which support the description 'scammer'.)

So you've 'struck out' on all your responses.

Regarding 'your questions', they were related to moderation policies. I have absolutely no say in those policies, so it is rather ridiculous to ask me to answer questions that on simple reflection I could not possibly answer.

If you actually want to contribute to this thread, I suggest that you 'up your game'. Your vitriol is both misguided and uninformative.

Docs. 295–298 now on the docket:

Quote from LLTL

Can we have a new rule on this forum?

If you want to call Andrea Rossi a scam artist(aka a person involved in criminal activity), you have to explain how he has scammed everyone for the last 6 years.

I am tired of people calling him a scammer, without explaining what the scam is, how the scam works, who the victims are.(IH is 30million richer thanks to Rossi)

If you can't give a good & clear explanation, you will get banned after three strikes. Doesn't that look like a fair deal?

I made a general commment that some people here have an agenda to discourage people from participating in LENR and I got directly flagged by a moderator. If we are going to be strict in one way, let's get strict in the other way also.

Display More

LLTL - you are quite right to be concerned about misuse of the word scam.

I think you are quite wrong to demand precisely what is the situation. That would be unkind to Rossi - there are shades here and we cannot know which is true.

In case you think I'm copping out here is one explanation, which i hope you think is good and clear enough for me not, under your real, to be banned.

Rossi deceives his business associates. Repeatedly, and over matters of importance. Documented. He has also, documented, mis-measured his reactor when demonstrating it to an important prospective business partner (Hydrofusion). When measured by independent people it did not work (at all). Mats vouches for this, and says that Rossi got angry and did not let Mats explain (in a friendly fashion) the physics behind the mis-measurement. IH claim a Rossi measurement

In spite of repeated and well known deceptive behavior Rossi is obviously personally very convincing, especially to naive scientists and journalists. I think he sells something we all ardently wish for, and when selling wishes, a significant number of people will let their hopes triumph over their common sense.

As for who are the victims: anyone who pays Rossi money. In the case of IH the real victims would be Woodford fund investors (who lose part of their money in an unwise investment) and other LENR researchers who have less money from IH due to that gone to Rossi, and probably now even less, due to the large amount spent on lawyers - though it is interesting to note that half of this legal money stays in the Rossi family.

So there are undoubtedly victims, but whether you call this a scam or an unwise investment in someone who repeatedly deceives business associates I don't know. IH seem to be gunning for fraud from Rossi, so if they are right it would be what in poipular parlance is called a scam.

Quote from ele

There are also many evidence against IH. Like for example collecting 250 M$ from investors during one long year without telling of any problem about Rossi.

The difference being that the evidence against IH is not documented true, and/or comes from sinister and unnatural interpretation of facts that have other more plausible and non-sinister explanations.

In this case you seem to have not one but two undocumented and almost certainly untrue statements:

IH collected $250M from investors

IH did not tell them about problems with Rossi

The evidence I cite against Rossi is fully documented.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I seem to have missed a step somewhere along the way.

Where was the Darden control reactor with high COP story tied into the COP 9 story?

So - you are perhaps right. I thought these were one and the same, but now you question this they may well be different. Plus ca change...

Quote from THHuxleynew

You then make a further much bigger assumption linking this to the unlikely idea of astroturfing on our this little cranny of the internet.

I guess I just don't think this is such a big leap of logic. But to each their own.

Quote from Can

Culottor?

CUL8R = "see you later"

Quote from we_cat_global

People that know Andrea Rossi well, stay on his side. No matter what.

Not all of them. Many people who know him well despise him. One of them, an otherwise mild mannered academic type, told me he would like to beat the crap out of Rossi. I am talking about people who worked with Rossi for months. They know him much better than you do.

If anything, I would say the more you know him, the more you despise him, and the less likely it is that you will stay on his side. I think the people you are talking about do not actually "know" him in the sense that they have met him, worked with him, or invested money in his inventions. I think you mean people who read his blog and assume that everything he says is true. People such as Peter Gluck.

Quote from ele

Yes. Absolutely, also people who knows all his story stay on his side.

By leaving "his side", any financial incentive is lost. By staying, they risk nothing, by leaving get risk all,

no brainer amigo

Quote from Ahlfors

Complex systems must be shattered a bit to collect REAL data on corresponding phase spaces.

Låt oss veta. Kontaktade du så småningom direkt den där vännen i Uppsala?

Quote from Can

Culottor?

Careful Can, you shouldn't (apostrophe) take such risks or you may end up with us Wops and Neutral Ninnies in the non-native ghetto thread.

P.S. Sorry Eric couldn't (apostrophe) resist.

Quote from JedRothwell

Not all of them. Many people who know him well despise him. One of them, an otherwise mild mannered academic type, told me he would like to beat the crap out of Rossi. I am talking about people who worked with Rossi for months. They know him much better than you do.

If anything, I would say the more you know him, the more you despise him, and the less likely it is that you will stay on his side. I think the people you are talking about do not actually "know" him in the sense that they have met him, worked with him, or invested money in his inventions. I think you mean people who read his blog and assume that everything he says is true. People such as Peter Gluck.

JedRothwell,

Many people? Fine, please name three then. Two?

More than likely that it is just my poor English. Maybe i use too many comma's, to little apostrophes. And i place them at the wrong spots. But i find it hard to deny that the hardcore Rossi bashers like yourself (but also for example Shane D.) more often than not avoid a confrontational discussion. Deliberately or not, that remains to be seen. You seem to understand a quote or question only partially. You emphasize more often than not the wrong part of a statement. Yet you constantly feel the urge to reply. And more often than not these replies do not bring anything new to the table.

Two examples;

1. Ahlfors posts a snippet of the website of the Uppsala University ("UU"). It proves that Fabiani is now somehow connected to the UU. That's it. That is Ahlfors message. Shane D., besides making negative remarks about Fabiani finds the word "visiting" an interesting part of that snippet. When Shane D. is told that the in the first place irrelevant word "visiting" is no longer there on the current, corresponding webpage of the UU, Shane D.spins this and says the following;

"Yesterday Ahlfors showed us a document about someone named Fabiani, who was a "visiting professor" as an "Analytical Chemist" at Upssala Univeristy. The upshot being that *our* Fabiani is the same person. Of course, as he intended, it caused a temporary stir that Fabiani was now employed. If so, that would be a big plus for Rossi, the Swedes and Lugano. When it was noted that visiting professors are not employees, the website he linked to was altered to drop "visiting"."

Shane D. seems to suggest that the UU website is updated because he rambles about the word "visiting". That is not only completely besides the point and confusing, it is also arrogant.

2. You and Shane D. react to my statement that i found it encouraging that Rossi's inner circle stays intact. I used different words, but that was the message. Shane D. reacts, says i am wrong, yet in the first paragraph of his post names nobody that left the inner circle of Rossi. He then uses the word "then" and with it falsely suggests that there is a next person that has left Rossi's inner circle. Only he never mentioned one in the first place. Shane D. mentions Marianne Macy. Fine. Good example. However, what is the feeling the reader gets when he / she reads the referred to article from Marianne Macy?

Cutting Ties?

You say that "many people who know him well despise him", but that is not a relevant reply to my statement. You know that i am talking about his inner circle staying intact. I am interested in people that were good friends with him at one moment in time, but after a certain event changed their opinion completely (Erdogan / Gulen for example). I am not at all interested in people that were never really his friend, got to know him and did not like him. Moreover, you do not dare to name the "academic" and thus your reply is not only irrelevant, it is also unnecessary and adds nothing but confusion.

Why so many words?

I think it is important to point out that you and Shane D. often like (literally by using the "like" button and or in replies to him) what Dewey Weaver is posting. It is repetitive and predictable behaviour. Liking anti-Rossi stuff, half baked replies to pro-Rossi stuff.

Why are you supporting him and IH constantly? And why are you doing that in such a "trollish" fashion?

Mr. Dewey Weaver is often using big words that never seem to materialize. Some examples;

"His troubles are increasing and those associated with him are probably thinking about saving their own skin"

"everyone whom he previously has associated with eventually got used up and tossed by the wayside"

"Uppsala is going to have to pay the full price of their ongoing association with Rossi along with a handful of others in that food chain"

Mr. Dewey Weaver is very keen to stress that Rossi is "soon all by himself". "Look what he did to us! He cannot be trusted and now everybody abandons him". But is not the opposite more plausible? Why is he constantly repeating his big words? IH are the good guys. They did nothing wrong. The judge will take care of Rossi, right?

Or could it be that perhaps IH and affiliates cunningly caught Rossi in a "slipknot contract" and slowly but surely build their portfolio around the acquired Rossi IP? Was it perhaps them that deceived Rossi and knew from the start that they at one point would ditch him?

JedRothwell, in all honesty, mano to mano, and besides the question if Rossi has the technology or not, is there a very slight chance (let's say one in a hundred) that IH and affiliates are a bunch of double crossing businessmen?

Thank you for your binary answer!

JB

WCG/JB - what a conniving spinster you've turned out to be.

Planet Rossi is in a lot of trouble. Additional and ongoing fabrication and slander by you and your kind will not save the R'ster.

TTM = tiresome trollman

Fear not TTM - you'll be glad to know that the real mission continues and, separately, that Rossi's earned place as a footnote in the history books is firming up.

The balance of 2017 is shaping up to be a humdinger!

You know Tiresome Trollman - it is so easy for you to be an anonymous teardown artist / hater with nothing in the hunt for better solutions to our planet's problems. I realize that you are not able to consider or participate in what it takes to try and enable high-risk prospects that can change our present condition - you cannot help that. Making long tail high impact bets takes guts, vision and the ability to put up with folks like you. You, along with the rest of your Planet Rossi brethren, just continue to hide, obfuscate and hate. Our fortitude is beyond your reach.

Rossi picked the wrong fight - that is coming to a head. Looking forward to what happens next.

Dewey Weaver

As you say, what comes next.

This thread goes dead with only trolls posting and even the few OCDs like me find it boring repeating the factual troll-spray too often.

It is like nasty hospital bugs, the anti-troll facts lose potency after a while cos they are indisputably true and everyone ignores them and looks for something else to argue about.

More facts = more troll-spray. It will come.