Clearance Items

    • Official Post

    Steady On Zephir. Moving a post into another open thread isn't censorship. I may have misremembered where i moved it from, for which I apologise. The way you're behaving I cannot be bothered to check. But it was hardly a lie, since it was definitely OT and only moved to correct thread drift. Calm down and grow up a bit.

  • Apology accepted, but IMO you should leave my post in its original thread, as the problem with "chance to surf on a technology revolution" aren't only patents, monopolies and censorship of media, but also moderation at otherwise public forums. We have sources of information, but we cannot discuss about them freely and in context of another findings, which would give us more complete picture. Now you only illustrated the problem of reddit forum with your own forum, in my opinion solely needlessly.

    • Official Post


    Every once in a while you go off the deep end here on LF, as we all do. But, you are no more controversial than the rest of us...unless you want to be, :) make high quality science contributions (unlike most), and are well liked. This is your home.

    So forget Reddit, and I suggest you do not take your frustrations of your treatment there, out on the mods here, as they have really mellowed out. I had some earlier issues here myself, but am a satisfied customer now.

  • Sorry, the sentence THIS POST AND THE FOUR BELOW IT MOVED HERE AS OT IN THE QUANTUM GRAVITY THREAD. OTHERWISE FINE! Alan is fabricated evasion for moving my post into a forum cesspool, i.e. a lie (a knowing saying the untruth). I did prove, that I posted it into another thread, where it belongs.

    If I would admit the opposite, I would be lying instead.

  • How is positiv feedback applied in totality for society?

    1) We are always right

    2) If not, 1) is pending!

    Here's how it applies: (1) Don't have a history of antisocial behavior here going back months and years, where you attack mods and other people periodically. (2) Don't accuse a mod of lying if there are simpler (and more obvious) explanations. (3) Don't double down on your error when the matter has been clarified.

  • Nope, I don't capiche. The burden of proof should be on accuser, not his victim, after then. Not to say, the accusations of fraud always make permanent damage, even if they turn out to be completely unsubstantial. So that the accuser should keep his responsibility for such damage and to pay, once he cannot prove his point.

    The burden of proof *is* on the accuser.

    So, if Rossi accuses someone of libel in the form of a law suit, the burden to prove libel to the court is Rossi's. And that will require him to prove the accusation is a lie to the satisfaction of the court.

    Likewise, if someone accuses Rossi of fraud in the form of a legal charge in court, then the charge of fraud must be proven to the court's satisfaction.

    If you call someone a thief in the street because you think he picked your pocket, you do not have to prove your accusation to avoid a law suit -- you have to prove it to get him convicted in court (or you have to justify it to have it believed by the public). Likewise, the alleged thief does not have to prove innocence to avoid a charge, but he does to sue his accuser for libel.

  • So, if Rossi accuses someone of libel in the form of a law suit, the burden to prove libel to the court is Rossi's. And that will require him to prove the accusation is a lie to the satisfaction of the court.

    Not entirely true. It might is some cases be enough to prove the damage done by the libel. Especially if the libel actions are out-of-proportions or the damages are big compared to the potential crime. Also the intention of the libel actions might be considered.

    • Official Post


    I think you might be confusing several things here. In order to claim for damages caused by what might be termed 'petty libel' you would have to demonstrate loss consequent to reputational damage. For example, if someone posted on a blog that a famous actor was 'an obnoxious pig who can never remember his lines' that would perhaps be enough to initiate a claim against the blogger for actual damage caused by the blog. A lost movie opportunity for example. In order to do this, one preferably needs a pretty good reputation in the first place and clear proof of a lost opportunity,

    I am not sure what you mean by:-

    if the libel actions are out-of-proportions or the damages are big compared to the potential crime.

    -but maybe my first paragraph covers this.

  • No, I do not think I'm confused.

    I was primarily referring to accusations regarding criminal activities; like fraud or pedophilia etc. (there is a difference in calling someone obnoxious pig and fraudster/pedophile) Otherwise you are correct. No doubt it is hard to prove lost business opportunities but the point is that at least according to swedish law it is not ok to say anything just because you think it is true (like someone being a fraudster or pedophile) - even if it at some later stage turns out to be correct. Although it will of course be to your advantage.

    The correct way to do it is to report criminals to the police. Broadcasting your opinions about someone looking like a pig, is too a much larger extent covered by the freedom of speech than accusing of fraud. This is an important distinction.

  • The above commentators appear to ignore the difference in libel/slander laws between countries. The US is exceptionally liberal in favor of free speech therefore Rossi would absolutely have to prove that the accusation of fraud was a lie if he sued. The way this would happen would be similar to the Rossi vs IH vs Rossi trial. The individual or group being sued by Rossi would present evidence that Rossi made false claims and cheated various companies and organizations. To prevail, Rossi would have to show that those accusations are false. The most obvious way to do this would be to show that the thermoelectric devices for DOD were real and worked as he said they did and that the ecat(s) work. He can't do that so he would lose. Ad of course, there would be much more to it. But the depositions already done for the IH case would go a long ways to prove that Rossi is indeed a fraud. Much of the work for the person claiming fraud would already have been done. Much of Rossi's fraud is glaringly self evident which is why it is extremely unlikely (but not impossible) that he would sue someone accusing him of it. At the end, he would also have to show damages in order to obtain compensation. So Rossi would have to show that someone calling him a fraud was false because all his stuff works and that the claimed defamation was willful and malicious and he had lost business or reputation because of the defamation. Not easy things. Especially for Professor Signore El Dottore Rossi.

    The problem for the "suees" would be that they have to pay for their defense, at least initially. If they won, they could then petition the court for costs. My very limited experience is that courts are reluctant to award costs so as not to discourage suits. But a libel suit by Rossi would be so outrageous that in that case, the court might indeed award costs. I emphasize again that I am not a lawyer though I have had to suffer through a couple of civil trials and I can tell you they are time consuming, expensive and a royal pain in the posterior. For both sides. For anyone except the lawyers.

  • Quote

    Since there is so much talk now about slander, here an interessting report about KPP Rosch (this are the ones who promote the buoyancy power plant) takeing some guy to court because this guy called them on his website a scam.

    KPP Rosch dropped the lawsuit last minute (just before the the reports from independent technical experts would have been disclosed)…ee-energy-trial-ends-now/

    When James Randi's foundation exposed Sniffex as a fraud, he was sued. The suit was similarly dropped before independent technical experts could perform tests on the device. Strange how that works. You may recall that Sniffex was sold as an explosive detector but was really a dowsing rod which when tested by many different agencies, detected nothing. It and similar devices did and probably still do maim and kill many people who rely on them to detect explosives and IED's, especially in S. E. Asia and the Middle East and IIRC Africa where they can still be promoted and sold. Amusingly, Lomax the abdominable snow man, still thinks these things have merit. I propose giving him one and turning him loose with it in a minefield so he can prove it if he thinks we are slandering the makers.

  • I can tell you they are time consuming, expensive and a royal pain in the posterior. For both sides. For anyone except the lawyers.

    Exactly, and that is why this is most probably a hypothetical discussion. There is not enough upside. So you can feel safe Mary. You do not need to worry that much, and can most certainly continue your slander/hate and libel crusade even without any sign of evidence.

  • I feel safe because I only point out the rather obvious truth which only a handful of acolytes refuse to see.

    Well, you obviously either believe that with a vengeance (emotionally conditioned by hate - which hardly leads to a rational analysis) or you are doing an exceptionally eager job to make it look that way. I do not know which one is the worst.