That Woodford values their IH investment about the same as before is quite fascinating.
Look at Ahlfors latest post. It seems that Woodford took a 60bps+ hit. Ouch!
Cheers,
JB
we_cat_global
Member
- Member since Mar 12th 2016
Posts by we_cat_global
-
-
Display More
Yes, that is the way it looks for me.
Even if there were some IH assets to attach now, I doubt there would be any after a few years of appeals which IH would surely do.
The attack on a large on going business with a revenue line is one thing, but an attack on a start up company which only gets money if investors want to put it in and take their risks is another. It would be so easy for IH to just declare bankruptcy and walk away. They have no stores, only a mostly empty warehouse and almost no employees to support, .... why would R think that IH would just give money (that they would ask for investors to give them) to him instead of walking away?
My guess is he thought his old tactics would work here and Darden would hand him "go away money".
Again the only win I can possibly see for him is to drop the suit and walk away with what money he has in his pockets. Only the lawyers will have his money after appeals even if he were to win. But if I had to make a prediction, it would be IH will not be held guilty and that Rossi and his will have to worry about the counter suit. And I would not doubt that Fabiani will try to do a deal with IH in evidence against R. I don't think he still has warm regards for Rossi after Rossi threw his computer and personal stuff out into the parking lot.
Wrong.
Rossi does not care either way. He is exactly in the legal soft spot he wants to be. I find it more and more plausible that the below is along the lines of his thinking;
- Rossi knows his technology works and along the way found out that IH are a bunch of unreliable guys that wanted to ditch him sooner or later;
- He sued them to make sure all their future LENR plans were put on hold;
- Because of Rossi's big claim IH cannot sell any assets (fraudulent conveyance) and partners are not very excited to finance other IH entities before this court case is behind them;
- Rossi kept on working and improved the technology that will, in whatever shape or form, pursue the route of commercialization;
- If IH wins, Rossi will appeal immediately and IH will be stuck in the same situation, while Rossi continues to work on his Quark X ventures;
- If Rossi wins and IH files for bankruptcy, Rossi will be there to take possession of all assets that are present in IH;
- If Rossi wins and IH pays him he will pocket the money and continue his Quark X ventures, leaving behind a badly wounded competitor.
One can label Rossi as crazy, but strategically he is smarter than IH. He is not shooting himself in the foot. IH can only win by making sure he somehow runs out of money and hope that his Quark X development will somehow be delayed.
Cheers,
JBEdit: I am for example wondering if Woodford can get their money back at this point. Thomas Darden does not want to be convicted of fraudulent conveyance and since Rossi is officially claiming a quarter of a billion i can imagine all payments that are not part of IH's "ordinary course of business" are out of the question with the court case going on. No cash bonuses for JT Vaughn and colleagues and therefore some shares in a worthless entity?
-
For those with the time and will to read it (not me) here is a link to the latest Woodford PCT annual report.
Thanks. Not too interesting and nothing very specific on the individual investments WF made. Like most active investors they are not doing that well compared against an ever higher FTSE index. See the undoubtedly "window dressed" graph below.
They 2% weighting of IH in their fund is substantial in my opinion. A write-off will be disastrous and if other components of their portfolio start heading south as well, will lead to redemptions (which lead to forced selling, which lead to redemptions, etc.).
Cheers,
JB
-
David and Goliath only works when you see David as a good person - Rossi's many deceits (not just about the customer - take for example his lie about the Hydrofusion test) will surely prevent a Jury from seeing that?
Wrong.
This will also work when one sees David as a bad person, yet as a very creative, charismatic, hardworking, sick but persevering and "fighting for the good cause" Italian Inventor, that is at least a few nudges better than the obviously bad, slimy, hypocrite Goliath that plays legal games to ultimately seize the as many LENR IP as he can.
There is a chance that his trial will be decided by what is not present in the documents, but one senses by being involved. If the jury does not find the proof found in the documents against Rossi damning enough, they will like him better than IH. The more they like him, the more they recognize the sliminess of IH, the more "damning proof" they will be prepared to swallow. Just like on this forum.
If the composition of the jury is similar to the group of posters on this forum IH is in my opinion in for a tough fight.
Cheers,
JB
-
Display More
Wow! A Sifferkoll-like fantasy admitted as such by the originator. Such self-knowledge is admirable.
And the facts are interesting. I wish we had some links. What books did Brain McLaughlin Sr write? And did they really refer to Thomas Huxley, or his more popularly famous son Aldous Huxley?
These intriguing questions as many others are amenable to google:
http://consc.net/mindpapers/4.2b
Thomas Huxley wrote some stuff on epiphenomenalism (or related to it - I'm not entirely clear what it is), referenced in the above googled link:
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE1/AnAuto.html
Brian P. Mclaughlin has written much on the topic, for example (this and otehr references from the above link):
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/…0000001/F0020001/art00003
So for one of the very few times (that I remember) posting here we_cat_global is actually likely correct. I have not read any of McLaughlin's books (nor, as we_cat_global implies, written them). But given they write on a related subject (epiphenomenalism) it would be surprising if there were not a few references to T.H.Huxley.
I guess what this shows is that those still attempting to argue the case for Rossi against IH have no real facts to consider, and therefore must spend their time hinting at weird and irrelevant connections between posters here?
I'll make things easy on we_cat_global on this one:
I can neither confirm nor deny that I'm Brian P.McLaughlin (as long as he is some guy of reputable character) but will view any repeated linkage of my alias with him as attempted doxxing!
Oh - just for the record:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/
And, yes, it lists T.H.Huxley as one of its many references...
Thank you, Sir, for your kind words. I found the thought amusing as well. Please note that i am not implying anything. I just listed some facts;
- Brian McLaughlin is a recipient in the "initial APCO" mail;
- He started his own firm and has a cool Linkedin page;
- Brian P. McLaughlin was most likely working on his PhD at Chapel Hill when Thomas Darden was there;
- Their names are similar and they might be family;
- Brian P. McLaughlin mentions T.H. Huxley quite a few times in his books.
I think you are way too smart to make use of a pseudonym that could be traced back so easily. However, if my firm was hired by IH to help them with their PR strategy i would definitely contact you. Your post are intelligent, eloquent and precise. Moreover, you seem to have leverage with the mods of this forum. Good on you, you shape opinions!
What disappointed me though is that you stated that all my other posts are untrue. And when you want to state your case you put a lot of work in finding proof, but this statement stays unfounded (for now). That i am not worth listening to might be correct, but i am not trying to bend the factual truth. I do sometimes write down my own opinion and on my "planet" these are mostly two different things.
Cheers,
JB
-
I really do not know. The randomly related facts are fun. They sure look alike don't they?
Cheers,
JB
-
Can you please elaborate a bit on the moving of posts? What is your goal by moving them? It seems awkward to (try to) smother a discussion on a very crucial aspect of this case. I can imagine that you (and other mods) get sick and tired of the endless stream of nonsense. However, one can sometimes still distill valuable info from the seemingly useless posts. For example the shining through of a strategy of a user.
Trying to unmask the intentions of users can also be in your favour. If IH and or Rossi hire people or create fake users to steer the public opinion on this forum it is also insulting towards you. These guys have something to win / earn, while abusing your services on a free forum.
Cheers,
JB -
All,
A wee far fetched, but what the heck!
What do you think, are the below guys related? Both are named Brian Mclaughlin. Brian Senior was at Chapel Hill when Thomas Darden studied there. What is funny is that Brian Senior is a big fan of Th. Huxley. He uses Huxley several times in his books.
Cheers,
JB
-
Brian McLaughlin was a recipient in the first disclosed mail that pointed to an APCO involvement. He has left APCO and now started a new firm with the modest name of Imperium Global Advisors. I can imagine that a few posters on this forum are not lying when they say they do not work for APCO...
Cheers,
JB
-
Can you predict when we will be informed of the imminent collapse? What about the 75K shares you received. What were they for?
Cheers,
JB
-
Thank you for reminding of this fact since it can be found in court documents in Rossis mail sent to Darden. I have earlier listed evidence of lack of values and low business morale of IH-Tribe. That Rossi's mail and even bragging about scamming HF earns him position in list of disgusting business partners to be avoided at any cost.
Our old wise men had saying (poorly translates to) 'A man is known by the company he keeps', and maybe Rossi lives this saying true (by many of its interpretations).Old news. Is it such a big deal if HF does not think it was a big deal. As far as i know they are still involved.
Cheers,
JB
-
Display More
WCG,
That last post was a bit wandering.
On another matter, I responded to you today regarding your other post about Fabiani/employed/chemist/Upssala. You did not respond...yet again. Troubling pattern. You raise something, I answer, I respond, you do not. Seems almost common among Rossi supporters...IHFB being an exception, although his exceptions are sometimes a stretch.
So, is our Fulvio Fabiani, the same Fabiani that is the employed Analytical Chemist at UU, as Ahlfors suggests?
I am terribly sorry. The question i noticed, but i thought it was rhetorical. And indeed, IH Fanboy is the best poster on this forum.
My guess is that the chance of winning the Power Ball is bigger than the chance that the news, brought to us by an anonymous Rossi supporter about a "Fulvio Fabiani", that has recently started working for UU, a university that has been involved in the Rossi saga, is about a different Fabio Fabiani than the Fulvio Fabiani that has worked alongside Rossi for so long.
But if you are in doubt, give 'm a call!
Cheers,
JB
-
"Political Correctness" has nothing to do with this discussion. At least from my point of view. The blunter and the more explicit the better. Call Rossi (or IH and affiliates for that matter) whatever you want to call them. Go for it.
One can debate however if explicitness works on a forum like the one we are filling. The mods of this forum are doing a fine job in my opinion and seem to work with a set of dynamic rules in combination with wit and knowledge. All fine.
What is annoying me are the half truths that confuse the core question.
Can Rossi create and control an LENR reaction or is he only simulating he can?
I haven't seen the indisputable proof that he is a simulant. Sure, a lot of noise, sometimes pretty loud, but no signal yet. On the other hand there is proof, at least to me there is, that others know more. The replicators, the people close to Rossi and most importantly IH and affiliates.
Thomas Darden and Co. show such ambivalent behaviour that i am personally sure there is more going on than what we see. A lot more. Actually IH, by all their accusations, threats and preparing actions, prove to me that there is great value in Rossi's IP.
One day we will be able to conclude the above question. It will take a few more years perhaps, but IH's post-trial actions, the LENR field dying of slowly but surely or a replicator will answer the question for us.
Ultimately I am fine having to accept that Rossi is a scammer. I would hate however, to see others bear the fruits of his work.
Cheers,
JB
-
@Bob,
Thanks, nice list. Indeed, i think it is an important point. The effort you made is appreciated. I'd like to continue this exercise. For the sake of simplicity i have summarized your list. However, i made some changes. Underneath the "lists" i explained the changes. I am curious what you and others think.
Pro
- Penon
- Fabiani
- Gullström
- Lewan
- Hydro Fusion
- Levi
- Focardi
Con
- IH
- Piantelli
- Prometeon
Neutral
- Group of Lugano Profs
- Former interested parties (NASA, NI, Boeing, Siemens, etc.)
- Cook
Remarks
- Gullström is an ally. One does not have to be publishing friendships in newspapers to be on somebody's side. Co-writing a paper with them says enough. Perhaps therefore Norman Cook should be part of the "Pro" team as well, but since the paper he wrote with Rossi was from some time back we keep him in "Neutral" for now.
- Hydro Fusion is still in the Rossi camp. They host his website if i am not mistaken and still market E-Cat products on their side. Chances are that he is working with them in Sweden.
- Levi is in Team Rossi. He notifies him when he feels harassed by IH's Israelis and is on Rossi's possible witness list.
- Piantelli and Prometeon are according to you anti-rossi. I cannot counter that with evidence, but perhaps others can. Shouldn't Prometeon have an issue with IH instead of Rossi? IH handled the buying--off of former licensees, right? (edit: Indeed, some googling showed that Prometeon are no friends of Rossi).
- I have grouped the parties that Rossi mentioned as partners or that actually were interested. I think that Rossi's hope dictates his thinking sometimes and that the interaction with these parties was not always as intensive as he wanted us to believe. IH sending Boeing a reactor is interesting though.
Cheers,
JB
-
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.
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?
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
-
Sure. However, have you seen how weird that sentence looks with only "The Weasel" in green?
We all know that Rossi is present on this forum. Are the other animal metaphors than not as bad?
Somehow i keep typing the name of the respectable Mr. Dewey Weaver wrong. I am not what it is with him. Everything related to him looks and sounds all dandy and all, but then suddenly unconsciously slides to a dark and smelly place, like the flushing of a turd in a toilet bowl.
Cheers,
JB
Your attitude is off, and I'm close to concluding that you're not able to contribute constructively to this thread. Eric
-
can,
I am in favor of an Ahlfors thread as well. This person has some very interesting new insights.
Despite all the FUD and venom i have always found one fact about Rossi very encouraging;
People that know Andrea Rossi well, stay on his side. No matter what.
That he works closely with several members of the Anneser family is again an example that people that really know him stay in his camp. I find it very plausible that lawyer Anneser, the obvious legal leader for Rossi in this case, reached out for some extra hands during the discovery period, and now that the trial seems to sail into the next phase, parts from these guys again.
The Weasel is constantly hissing about "cockroaches", "rats leaving the ship", etc. Can anyone give me three names of people close to Rossi that left him?
Let's keep things respectful. Eric
-
Nope, she was her a few days back and also wished Peter Gluck all the best on his blog. Don't worry man, "a bad sixpence always turns up".
JB
-
Haha, yes, that promotion says more about this site than about me. I guess the excitement it brings me says something about me though. Just as i like "Grasshopper" or "Chicken Little". What a wonderful time to be alive.
Some people are called "chemists", some call themselves "doctor" and you are labelled "professional". Strange world, no?
Maybe Rossi's team is hacking the Uppsala website as we type. Quickly, check it out before they delete Michael Jackson's involvement as well;
Fabiani, to visit or not to visit?
Cheers,
JB -
