Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: You are twisting words or make citations after your own interpretation. ***No, it's just a simple matter of a typo. I posted that you should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquino to learn more about it. I was using the derivative pasquinade when it should have been pasquino. The Pasquino is the statue. The pasquinade is the missive posted onto the pasqunino. You are the pasquino. You are a statue who cannot reason credibly, nor answer intelligently. But thank you for looking up pasquinade. It is bizarre that you think you could have been the one writing the lampoon and posting it onto the pasquino.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
If you are throwing around words you do not manage you end up using them wrong and it backfires. Sorry for you. Just fyi the Swedes are not my friends - I do not even know them or know much about them. I agree with that my writing skills are less good - particularly as this is my second language. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: You are twisting words or make citations after your own interpretation. ***No, it's just a simple matter of a typo. I posted that you should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquino to learn more about it. I was using the derivative pasquinade when it should have been pasquino. The Pasquino is the statue. The pasquinade is the missive posted onto the pasqunino. You are the pasquino. You are a statue who cannot reason credibly, nor answer intelligently. But thank you for looking up pasquinade. It is bizarre that you think you could have been the one writing the lampoon and posting it onto the pasquino.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
Your writing skills are good enough. It is your thinking skills that need a lot of work. You don't seem able to grasp simple concepts, you browbeat, you use assertions and call them reasons, you can't avoid straw argumentation, you put your head in the sand and shout so no one can change your mind. It appears that critical thinking is a third language for you. On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: If you are throwing around words you do not manage you end up using them wrong and it backfires. Sorry for you. Just fyi the Swedes are not my friends - I do not even know them or know much about them. I agree with that my writing skills are less good - particularly as this is my second language. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: You are twisting words or make citations after your own interpretation. ***No, it's just a simple matter of a typo. I posted that you should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquino to learn more about it. I was using the derivative pasquinade when it should have been pasquino. The Pasquino is the statue. The pasquinade is the missive posted onto the pasqunino. You are the pasquino. You are a statue who cannot reason credibly, nor answer intelligently. But thank you for looking up pasquinade. It is bizarre that you think you could have been the one writing the lampoon and posting it onto the pasquino.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, yes I had to look up pasquinade . I did not think it was any satire in what I said . I would say it is life. Yes, delayed and cancelled performances happens and that is regardless if they are publicly announced. Your analogy is not bad. A pity you cannot see the message. You need to invest depending on your knowledge and assess the risk and finally decide if you can live with the conditions. There are no sure investments. Even if your stocks seems like losers today - you never know (as you have not done the homework) there may be another factor that brings the stock back or better. Let us hope so. I have no problem that you make statements about my profession. You do not know me and I have never worked with you so just go on and tell me how no good I am I hope you collect more data before you do investments. No, Kevin I do not understand that one can be so jealous that one consider stealing things. That people steal for basic need I understand but for greed - no. I have handled other peoples money and never did I feel I could / should or would 'walk away' with their checks. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, yes I had to look up pasquinade . I did not think it was any satire in what I said . ***You'll need to look it up again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquino When someone calls you a pasquinade, it means you're as dumb as the pasquino statue and do not have the ability to reply intelligently. I would say it is life. Yes, delayed and cancelled performances happens and that is regardless if they are publicly announced. Your analogy is not bad. ***High praise, coming from you. A pity you cannot see the message. ***The pity is in your corner because the fat lady is incompetent at best. You need to invest depending on your knowledge and assess the risk and finally decide if you can live with the conditions. There are no sure investments. Even if your stocks seems like losers today - you never know (as you have not done the homework) there may be another factor that brings the stock back or better. Let us hope so. ***Luckily for me, I decided upthread that I wouldn't be taking any advice from you. I have no problem that you make statements about my profession. You do not know me and I have never worked with you so just go on and tell me how no good I am I hope you collect more data before you do investments. ***Yup, you're the one who learned stuff from me and my creative insults, like calling you a pasquinade. No, Kevin I do not understand that one can be so jealous that one consider stealing things. ***That would explain the entire nature of our correspondence. That people steal for basic need I understand but for greed - no. I have handled other peoples money and never did I feel I could / should or would 'walk away' with their checks. ***It's an analogy. The analogy is that there's temptation. Martha Stewart had plenty of money when she engaged in insider trading. People are fallible, but you simply cannot see it if the supposed greedsters are Swedish. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
You are twisting words or make citations after your own interpretation. Most of your stuff is just polemic. Just fyi my idea about how theft can be understood or less condemned is not an analogy. You had an analogy, which was good but you did not understand the analogy. As you bring up Marta Stewart - isn't she a good example of someone who thought she was invisible. Problem was she did not understand her own social situation because she was spoiled by being treated preferably. Not the case with a few Swedish PhD's involved in a very high profile technology as unbiased examiners. I can hear you are looking for a fat incompetent lady - hope you do better with that. I did look up pasquinade and it says 'a creative work that uses sharp humor to point up the foolishness of a person'. or in another 'pas·qui·nade (pskw-nd) *n.* A satire or lampoon, especially one that ridicules a specific person, traditionally written and posted in a public place. ' I am sure yours is better. Use words that has meaning there is many of them in the English language. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, yes I had to look up pasquinade . I did not think it was any satire in what I said . ***You'll need to look it up again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquino When someone calls you a pasquinade, it means you're as dumb as the pasquino statue and do not have the ability to reply intelligently. I would say it is life. Yes, delayed and cancelled performances happens and that is regardless if they are publicly announced. Your analogy is not bad. ***High praise, coming from you. A pity you cannot see the message. ***The pity is in your corner because the fat lady is incompetent at best. You need to invest depending on your knowledge and assess the risk and finally decide if you can live with the conditions. There are no sure investments. Even if your stocks seems like losers today - you never know (as you have not done the homework) there may be another factor that brings the stock back or better. Let us hope so. ***Luckily for me, I decided upthread that I wouldn't be taking any advice from you. I have no problem that you make statements about my profession. You do not know me and I have never worked with you so just go on and tell me how no good I am I hope you collect more data before you do investments. ***Yup, you're the one who learned stuff from me and my creative insults, like calling you a pasquinade. No, Kevin I do not understand that one can be so jealous that one consider stealing things. ***That would explain the entire nature of our correspondence. That people steal for basic need I understand but for greed - no. I have handled other peoples money and never did I feel I could / should or would 'walk away' with their checks. ***It's an analogy. The analogy is that there's temptation. Martha Stewart had plenty of money when she engaged in insider trading. People are fallible, but you simply cannot see it if the supposed greedsters are Swedish. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: You are twisting words or make citations after your own interpretation. Most of your stuff is just polemic. ***So is yours, you're just a crappy writer. Just fyi my idea about how theft can be understood or less condemned is not an analogy. You had an analogy, which was good but you did not understand the analogy. ***There you go again, giving an assertion as if it were a reason. Of COURSE I understood the analogy, because I was the one who INTRODUCED it. But you can't see the fat lady having ulterior motives because you refuse to. Head in the sand. You're ridiculous. As you bring up Marta Stewart - isn't she a good example of someone who thought she was invisible. ***Man, are you way off here. She had millions of TV followers from her show. Where do you come up with this stuff? Problem was she did not understand her own social situation because she was spoiled by being treated preferably. ***A lot like them there your swedish friends. Not the case with a few Swedish PhD's involved in a very high profile technology as unbiased examiners. ***Umm, do we even know who they are? Talk about thinking one is invisible, getting spoiled by being treated preferably. I can hear you are looking for a fat incompetent lady - hope you do better with that. ***I can hear you are looking for a clue. Best for you to go down to the corner store and purchase one.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
In short Kevin it is not a way to take care of the professor' future economic future . That is what I have said and continue saying. The personal insults would upset me if I know myself as little as I know you. I hope you learnt from this investment it is a difficult game and seldom does it follow the anticipated path. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin it does not make any difference to me if you are doing good or bad decisions. ***Then why bring it up? As you are talking about it and think others are to blame - I thought it was fair game and I do call a spade a spade. ***Then I shall call your strategic leadership and other nonsense exactly what it is as well. However, now you have made an investment and when it goes sour then the solution is to find a sinner ***How is that a solution? It solves nothing. . I understand that if it is not conspiracy then they are individually ganging up on your investments. ***You seem fundamentally incapable of arguing without using strawmen to prop up. Where did I say they're ganging up on my investments? I didn't. I said they are being selfish with the information they're hoarding. You have imagination I will admit. ***And you don't. A tragic flaw for someone who claims the mantle of strategic leadership. There is no accusation in that. Just simple fact. I have said all the time it is a dangerous time to do investment in this genre. Nothing for non-risk-takers. ***I'm glad to see that we agree. The reason why it is a dangerous time to invest in LENR is because of the selfish hoarding of information, a market cornered by 7 PhD dudes who, in your view are simply incompetent but in my view they are obviously engaging in insider trading. Education or title has nothing to do with performance. ***Now again you resort to a meaningless phrase, a cliche, rather than developing your thoughts the way a strategic leader would be doing. You stated they are 'gurus' - well educated. I simply said that does not mean anything in regards to what they have promised and should have known. ***So here you are backtracking? Are they incompetent? The things they should have known that the vast majority of vorticians knew was that there should be isotopic testing. They're just now figuring that out, and you're just now backtracking enough to start with the acknowledgement that such a thing shows tremendous incompetence. So much incompetence that it begs the question of... perhaps they're not that incompetent, just engaging in insider trading. No, Kevin you are the one talking about conspiracy. I do not think, that talk has any merit. ***I did NOT talk about conspiracy. You inserted and asserted it. No, you did not say that AR is in a cover-up. However, he ought to be more aware of what is going on than you and I. Then he is the one who has gotten a timeline. If he thought they are delaying, by pure evil and personal greed, he would not be understanding of the delay. ***And if he were in such a position as you describe, what would his post on JONP look like? Exactly like the one he posted. We can leave my leadership business out of this argument. ***As long as you're throwing zingers, zingers will be thrown back atcha. I certainly would not try to lead you. ***Good for you. Maybe you can POTO to someone else and jump on a bandwagon or two call it leadership. To negative - a hopeless case. ***I was looking to put my money where my mouth is. In your hopelessly negative case, you do not appear to have put down one red cent where your mouth is, you ain't a leader, you hide negative viewpoints out of fear, and then you try to browbeat those who disagree with you. Truly a hopeless case. Or maybe you just act? Hope so. ***If yours is an act, you need to change the tune. I do not have to exhibit any leadership in a discussion that is just a circle. ***Don't worry, you haven't exhibited any leadership in this discussion so that's one concern you can pull off your table. Just thought that you should chill if you saw that it obviously is nobody else thinking as you do. ***Gosh, you mean I'm so far ahead in strategic leadership that someone like you needs to look around for bandwagon joiners just so he can feel reassured? Maybe you should find a parade to step in front of so you can pretend to be leading it... you'll feel reassured and it will look like you're some kinda leader. I hear you can get consulting gigs that way. Did you mention accusation?
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: In short Kevin it is not a way to take care of the professor' future economic future . That is what I have said and continue saying. ***In short, you simply don't have a clue about how much temptation this represents. If you were working on a project and saw a check made out to cash for $3Billion, would you be tempted to walk away cash it? If your answer is no, you're completely disingenuine. And there's more than $3Billion on the table at stake here. Maybe more like $3T. The personal insults would upset me if I know myself as little as I know you. ***If the personal insults get to you so much, why do you hurl them? Surely it is a poor reflection of someone who claims the mantle of strategic leadership. I hope you learnt from this investment it is a difficult game and seldom does it follow the anticipated path. ***The sun has not yet set nor has the fat lady sung on that investment. But when you pay good money based upon PUBLIC information that the fat lady is DUE to sing at 6pm Tuesday and here you are at Midnight all she can say is I didn't anticipate that going out on stage is so overwhelming well, at that point you have a right to question the character, legitimacy, professionalism, and personal motives of the fat lady. And since you have proven to be so inanely feckless at grasping simple concepts, I will spell it out for you: In this analogy, the fat lady represents the 7 PhD scientists. Thank you for your interactions. It proves useful once in awhile to post against a pasquinade. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
I do not know how you defend your own greed - especially if you have made the wrong decision. Kevin you are just one of. My point was not that AR should say something els9e - he could say something less irritating to you and othersthat belive conspiracy is the issue. Reality is that you are just concerned about yourown greed. You have made another big mistake that makes me belive you are 21. Reality is that education and academical merits has no correlation to ability of making things happen - often the opposite. Observe I have never said that it is OK with not living up to ones promises, just that conspiracy does not go with the territory. AR's response isso farfrom acover up that even you . . . . On Jun 30, 2014 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin, At least you have to try to believe that people are not all malicious. ***I'm not attributing malice. I'm attributing greed. He certainly could say that he is disappointed and that he feels that they have broken their promises. ***And that would help out his case exactly how? They'd just delay the report even further. He could say a lot other things instead of just throwing out a lie, which he for sure would have to pay dearly for if you are right (which you are not). ***Perhaps you are not familiar with Rossi's credibility issues regarding his past posts on JONP. There for sure are other motivational factors for people than greed. ***Yes, there are. I just find it difficult to believe that these 7 PhD's are so incompetent. I mean, the vast majority of Vorts knew that there would probably have to be isotopic analysis on the 6 month test. But these geniuses are ONLY NOW getting around to thinking about doing it? That simply does not add up. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, I read it. What else can Rossi say? You don't spit at the alligator until you're done crossing the river. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hi Alan, I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of the reasons for the delay. I hope Kevin reads it. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972594 Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R. - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972560 Angel Blume: We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
Contrariwise, almost everything he's referred to has come to fruition in one form or another. (Maybe not the automated factory, but where DID all those 1MW units, in 3 different models, come from?) ***Oh really. Where's that big, well known customer he claimed to have shipped to in 2011? Do you really expect that this report is going to be peer reviewed? The last one wasn't. The test has only just ended. ***The REPORT was due in April. The tests were done by March. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: ***Perhaps you are not familiar with Rossi's credibility issues regarding his past posts on JONP. Contrariwise, almost everything he's referred to has come to fruition in one form or another. (Maybe not the automated factory, but where DID all those 1MW units, in 3 different models, come from?) ***Yes, there are. I just find it difficult to believe that these 7 PhD's are so incompetent. I mean, the vast majority of Vorts knew that there would probably have to be  isotopic analysis on the 6 month test. But these geniuses are ONLY NOW getting around to thinking about doing it? That simply does not add up. The test has only just ended. I just hope they had enough sample material to do multiple tests. That's the one aspect that could be done differently if the reviewers suggest/require it. And I repeat my wish that they'd separate the calorimetric and mass spectrometry papers.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I do not know how you defend your own greed - ***That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. especially if you have made the wrong decision. ***Why should it make ANY difference to you, whatsoever? Kevin you are just one of. ***You'll need to rewrite that sentence because it has no meaning. My point was not that AR should say something els9e - he could say something less irritating to you and othersthat belive conspiracy is the issue. ***So, you're back to reiterating your point. One thing to keep in mind is that a conspiracy does not necessarily have to exist for this outcome to be as late as it is. Each one of those 7 PhD's could have decided INDEPENDENTLY to take advantage of the information. Reality is that you are just concerned about yourown greed. ***Reality is you're deflecting, and now getting accusatory. You have made another big mistake that makes me belive you are 21. ***Insults now, huh? Such poorly crafted insults make me believe you are 14. You certainly have no business claiming strategic leadership as a tagline; more like strategic bandwagon joining and purely conventional, inside-the-box thinking. Reality is that education and academical merits has no correlation to ability of making things happen - often the opposite. ***Perhaps some day I might possibly care enough about what you just wrote to ask you to clarify it. Observe I have never said that it is OK with not living up to ones promises, just that conspiracy does not go with the territory. ***There you go again, with a straw argument of conspiracy. AR's response isso farfrom acover up that even you . . . . ***When did I EVER claim that Rossi is engaging in a coverup? Please try to exhibit some of that strategic leadership you lay such a claim upon. Stop using straw arguments. On Jun 30, 2014 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin, At least you have to try to believe that people are not all malicious. ***I'm not attributing malice. I'm attributing greed. He certainly could say that he is disappointed and that he feels that they have broken their promises. ***And that would help out his case exactly how? They'd just delay the report even further. He could say a lot other things instead of just throwing out a lie, which he for sure would have to pay dearly for if you are right (which you are not). ***Perhaps you are not familiar with Rossi's credibility issues regarding his past posts on JONP. There for sure are other motivational factors for people than greed. ***Yes, there are. I just find it difficult to believe that these 7 PhD's are so incompetent. I mean, the vast majority of Vorts knew that there would probably have to be isotopic analysis on the 6 month test. But these geniuses are ONLY NOW getting around to thinking about doing it? That simply does not add up. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, I read it. What else can Rossi say? You don't spit at the alligator until you're done crossing the river. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hi Alan, I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of the reasons for the delay. I hope Kevin reads it. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972594 Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
Kevin it does not make any difference to me if you are doing good or bad decisions. As you are talking about it and think others are to blame - I thought it was fair game and I do call a spade a spade. However, now you have made an investment and when it goes sour then the solution is to find a sinner. I understand that if it is not conspiracy then they are individually ganging up on your investments. You have imagination I will admit. There is no accusation in that. Just simple fact. I have said all the time it is a dangerous time to do investment in this genre. Nothing for non-risk-takers. Education or title has nothing to do with performance. You stated they are 'gurus' - well educated. I simply said that does not mean anything in regards to what they have promised and should have known. No, Kevin you are the one talking about conspiracy. I do not think, that talk has any merit. No, you did not say that AR is in a cover-up. However, he ought to be more aware of what is going on than you and I. Then he is the one who has gotten a timeline. If he thought they are delaying, by pure evil and personal greed, he would not be understanding of the delay. We can leave my leadership business out of this argument. I certainly would not try to lead you. To negative - a hopeless case. Or maybe you just act? Hope so. I do not have to exhibit any leadership in a discussion that is just a circle. Just thought that you should chill if you saw that it obviously is nobody else thinking as you do. Did you mention accusation? Heard the story about throwing rocks in glasshouse. I do not know your age. It could just as well be a compliment. My memory although cloudy by the years, let me remember that at 21 I thought everything should work. At that age I think I could have invested and blamed someone else or the cold summer of -64. At 14 there were other things but investment that interested me. Do you think I might get those hormones in that same frenzy? What is it that makes you think so? Let me know . BTW my English could be better - I knew that before you pointed it out - I guess it was pure goodwill from your side. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I do not know how you defend your own greed - ***That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. especially if you have made the wrong decision. ***Why should it make ANY difference to you, whatsoever? Kevin you are just one of. ***You'll need to rewrite that sentence because it has no meaning. My point was not that AR should say something els9e - he could say something less irritating to you and othersthat belive conspiracy is the issue. ***So, you're back to reiterating your point. One thing to keep in mind is that a conspiracy does not necessarily have to exist for this outcome to be as late as it is. Each one of those 7 PhD's could have decided INDEPENDENTLY to take advantage of the information. Reality is that you are just concerned about yourown greed. ***Reality is you're deflecting, and now getting accusatory. You have made another big mistake that makes me belive you are 21. ***Insults now, huh? Such poorly crafted insults make me believe you are 14. You certainly have no business claiming strategic leadership as a tagline; more like strategic bandwagon joining and purely conventional, inside-the-box thinking. Reality is that education and academical merits has no correlation to ability of making things happen - often the opposite. ***Perhaps some day I might possibly care enough about what you just wrote to ask you to clarify it. Observe I have never said that it is OK with not living up to ones promises, just that conspiracy does not go with the territory. ***There you go again, with a straw argument of conspiracy. AR's response isso farfrom acover up that even you . . . . ***When did I EVER claim that Rossi is engaging in a coverup? Please try to exhibit some of that strategic leadership you lay such a claim upon. Stop using straw arguments. On Jun 30, 2014 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin, At least you have to try to believe that people are not all malicious. ***I'm not attributing malice. I'm attributing greed. He certainly could say that he is disappointed and that he feels that they have broken their promises. ***And that would help out his case exactly how? They'd just delay the report even further. He could say a lot other things instead of just throwing out a
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin it does not make any difference to me if you are doing good or bad decisions. ***Then why bring it up? As you are talking about it and think others are to blame - I thought it was fair game and I do call a spade a spade. ***Then I shall call your strategic leadership and other nonsense exactly what it is as well. However, now you have made an investment and when it goes sour then the solution is to find a sinner ***How is that a solution? It solves nothing. . I understand that if it is not conspiracy then they are individually ganging up on your investments. ***You seem fundamentally incapable of arguing without using strawmen to prop up. Where did I say they're ganging up on my investments? I didn't. I said they are being selfish with the information they're hoarding. You have imagination I will admit. ***And you don't. A tragic flaw for someone who claims the mantle of strategic leadership. There is no accusation in that. Just simple fact. I have said all the time it is a dangerous time to do investment in this genre. Nothing for non-risk-takers. ***I'm glad to see that we agree. The reason why it is a dangerous time to invest in LENR is because of the selfish hoarding of information, a market cornered by 7 PhD dudes who, in your view are simply incompetent but in my view they are obviously engaging in insider trading. Education or title has nothing to do with performance. ***Now again you resort to a meaningless phrase, a cliche, rather than developing your thoughts the way a strategic leader would be doing. You stated they are 'gurus' - well educated. I simply said that does not mean anything in regards to what they have promised and should have known. ***So here you are backtracking? Are they incompetent? The things they should have known that the vast majority of vorticians knew was that there should be isotopic testing. They're just now figuring that out, and you're just now backtracking enough to start with the acknowledgement that such a thing shows tremendous incompetence. So much incompetence that it begs the question of... perhaps they're not that incompetent, just engaging in insider trading. No, Kevin you are the one talking about conspiracy. I do not think, that talk has any merit. ***I did NOT talk about conspiracy. You inserted and asserted it. No, you did not say that AR is in a cover-up. However, he ought to be more aware of what is going on than you and I. Then he is the one who has gotten a timeline. If he thought they are delaying, by pure evil and personal greed, he would not be understanding of the delay. ***And if he were in such a position as you describe, what would his post on JONP look like? Exactly like the one he posted. We can leave my leadership business out of this argument. ***As long as you're throwing zingers, zingers will be thrown back atcha. I certainly would not try to lead you. ***Good for you. Maybe you can POTO to someone else and jump on a bandwagon or two call it leadership. To negative - a hopeless case. ***I was looking to put my money where my mouth is. In your hopelessly negative case, you do not appear to have put down one red cent where your mouth is, you ain't a leader, you hide negative viewpoints out of fear, and then you try to browbeat those who disagree with you. Truly a hopeless case. Or maybe you just act? Hope so. ***If yours is an act, you need to change the tune. I do not have to exhibit any leadership in a discussion that is just a circle. ***Don't worry, you haven't exhibited any leadership in this discussion so that's one concern you can pull off your table. Just thought that you should chill if you saw that it obviously is nobody else thinking as you do. ***Gosh, you mean I'm so far ahead in strategic leadership that someone like you needs to look around for bandwagon joiners just so he can feel reassured? Maybe you should find a parade to step in front of so you can pretend to be leading it... you'll feel reassured and it will look like you're some kinda leader. I hear you can get consulting gigs that way. Did you mention accusation? Heard the story about throwing rocks in glasshouse. ***Look back on our interactions. You'll see the accusations coming from you, and me responding. Some leader you are... I do not know your age. It could just as well be a compliment. My memory although cloudy by the years, let me remember that at 21 I thought everything should work. At that age I think I could have invested and blamed someone else or the cold summer of -64. At 14 there were other things but investment that interested me. Do you think I might get those hormones in that same frenzy? What is it that makes you think so? Let me know . ***Stream of consciousness bullshit. Look at your own glass house. BTW my English could be better - I
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
* Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R. * Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM Angel Blume: We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
Hi Alan, I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of the reasons for the delay. I hope Kevin reads it. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972594 Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R. - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972560 Angel Blume: We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
Yeah, I read it. What else can Rossi say? You don't spit at the alligator until you're done crossing the river. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hi Alan, I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of the reasons for the delay. I hope Kevin reads it. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972594 Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R. - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972560 Angel Blume: We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
Kevin, At least you have to try to believe that people are not all malicious. He certainly could say that he is disappointed and that he feels that they have broken their promises. He could say a lot other things instead of just throwing out a lie, which he for sure would have to pay dearly for if you are right (which you are not). There for sure are other motivational factors for people than greed. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, I read it. What else can Rossi say? You don't spit at the alligator until you're done crossing the river. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hi Alan, I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of the reasons for the delay. I hope Kevin reads it. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972594 Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R. - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972560 Angel Blume: We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin, At least you have to try to believe that people are not all malicious. ***I'm not attributing malice. I'm attributing greed. He certainly could say that he is disappointed and that he feels that they have broken their promises. ***And that would help out his case exactly how? They'd just delay the report even further. He could say a lot other things instead of just throwing out a lie, which he for sure would have to pay dearly for if you are right (which you are not). ***Perhaps you are not familiar with Rossi's credibility issues regarding his past posts on JONP. There for sure are other motivational factors for people than greed. ***Yes, there are. I just find it difficult to believe that these 7 PhD's are so incompetent. I mean, the vast majority of Vorts knew that there would probably have to be isotopic analysis on the 6 month test. But these geniuses are ONLY NOW getting around to thinking about doing it? That simply does not add up. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, I read it. What else can Rossi say? You don't spit at the alligator until you're done crossing the river. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hi Alan, I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of the reasons for the delay. I hope Kevin reads it. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972594 Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R. - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972560 Angel Blume: We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
***Perhaps you are not familiar with Rossi's credibility issues regarding his past posts on JONP. Contrariwise, almost everything he's referred to has come to fruition in one form or another. (Maybe not the automated factory, but where DID all those 1MW units, in 3 different models, come from?) ***Yes, there are. I just find it difficult to believe that these 7 PhD's are so incompetent. I mean, the vast majority of Vorts knew that there would probably have to be  isotopic analysis on the 6 month test. But these geniuses are ONLY NOW getting around to thinking about doing it? That simply does not add up. The test has only just ended. I just hope they had enough sample material to do multiple tests. That's the one aspect that could be done differently if the reviewers suggest/require it. And I repeat my wish that they'd separate the calorimetric and mass spectrometry papers.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
I don't know you people what you are seeing. That's really the most normal answer Rossi ever game. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
*not game, gave 2014-06-30 22:28 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com: I don't know you people what you are seeing. That's really the most normal answer Rossi ever game. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
