We Cat, I had the pleasure of reading WWs posts at the time. You are reductive. In fact, I think your simplification here may be what allows you still to hold views about the Rossi-IH affair which most people would not (you may correct me if I'm wrong).
WW was not saying that right would win. He was saying it was obvious from the evidence that Rossi was a liar, and that given that evidence he would not be believed. We will never know what would have happened, since Rossi aborted the trial before he had to give testimony. Some have speculated that Rossi would have been in danger of charges of perjury over the sworn heat exchanger evidence he gave (which has various issues, but is central to his claim that his device worked as Penon's report indicates). it is a shame we did not get to test this.
However, WW did not from that come to the naive conclusion that IH would win the case in any way financially satisfactory to them. Juries can get to dislike both sides when each side is calling the other one a liar, regardless of what a sober reading of facts would indicate.
You can see that it is not a simple Rossi right or wrong choice. Things seldom are. Rossi can have many admirable characteristics... and still be Rossi. If you push things into this black or white mould you are in danger yourself of making poor judgements.
Dear THHuxleynew ,
The discussion is rather irrelevant, right?
Rossie moved on from a business partner from hell, that, cheered-on by its fanbase, stated that they would crush the conning liar into oblivion.
However, what we are discussing now is that the above just did not happen. Did it? And that you and others were convinced it would happen.
Your "black and white" statement is correct. However, you, and WW for that matter, consciously or not, constantly switch between "it's complex and look at all the shades of grey" and "he is a liar, how black and white do you want me to serve it to you?".
The switching, combined with a large dosis of hindsight theory gives you (and others on this forum) the impression that you are seldomly wrong, while it is closer to the truth that you use a lot of words and add layers of complexity to hide that you are wrong about the fundamentals most of the time.
We'll see. It seems to me that Rossi is again working on something we can soon bicker about. You probably will be one of the first to start criticizing him. I am looking forward to, while i am reading your posts, envision a motivated older guy with a negative grin, hammering at his keyboard, trying to save the world from Andrea Rossi.
All the best,