Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:


> Does your concept of reading the depositions apply to someone who claims
> to be a lawyer?
>

I do not understand this question. I referred to the depositions by Smith,
which are technical:

EXPERT REPORT OF RICK A. SMITH, P.E., Document 235-1
SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT OF RICK A. SMITH, P.E., Document 235-10

Available here:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0235.01_Exhibit_1.pdf

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0235.10_Exhibit_10.pdf

My only comments relate to things like the Second Law as described by
Smith. I agree with his analysis.



>   WoodWorker claimed to be a lawyer and in his intro made a big deal about
> Penon not showing up to back up his report.  But it turns out Penon's
> deposition is admitted as evidence.
>

I have no knowledge of this. I have no idea whether it was admitted or not,
or what the legal implications of admitting it would be. My only comment
about the report is that it proves Rossi is a fraud.

Anyway, it seems the trial is over, thank goodness.



> So, if you hold an ordinary poster to such a high standard of reading
> depositions, shouldn't you be holding someone who claims to be a
> bloodsucking lawyer to an even higher standard?
>

I do not understand this comment, or which lawyer you consider a
bloodsucker, or why you think so.


> Vorts might not know this but the whole discussion matrix at LENR forum
> (at least on the Rossi vs. IH thread) is heavily weighted towards
> anti-Rossi.   Very heavily.
>

I disagree.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

 Jed:

I'm responding here because I'm not allowed to respond at LENR forum for 2
weeks.
Does your concept of reading the depositions apply to someone who claims to
be a lawyer?   WoodWorker claimed to be a lawyer and in his intro made a
big deal about Penon not showing up to back up his report.  But it turns
out Penon's deposition is admitted as evidence.

So, if you hold an ordinary poster to such a high standard of reading
depositions, shouldn't you be holding someone who claims to be a
bloodsucking lawyer to an even higher standard?   See, he claims to be a
lawyer but makes incredibly boneheaded mistakes; I am just a layman but he
insults me on my legal knowledge.   Isn't it right to insult him on his
legal knowledge in this case?

Vorts might not know this but the whole discussion matrix at LENR forum (at
least on the Rossi vs. IH thread) is heavily weighted towards anti-Rossi.
Very heavily.   When a stumblebutt lawyer comes along and is anti-Rossi, he
gets to insult whoever criticizes him, but someone who says they want 25:1
odds to take up the stumblebutt lawyer on his illegal $10,000 bet (<---see
that, an illegal bet offer from a LAWYER), well that guy gets insulted as
part of the  Planet Rossi collective.



JedRothwell 
Verified User
Likes Received 3,558
Posts 
2,897

   - 12 hours ago
   



   - New
   -


   - #9,772
   



Adrian Ashfield wrote:


That tells me nothing about their relevant industrial experience.

Read their depositions and you will learn a great deal about their
industrial experience. Clearly you have not read the depositions, because
you did not know that Smith visited the site and photographed the mezzanine
and other areas. Anyone can see you are pontificating about reports that
you have not read. You make yourself look silly when you do that. It is not
convincing.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Frank,  read the original question at the top of this thread, and then ask
yourself if what I posted was pertinent to that question.   The answer is,
Yes it was pertinent.

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com> wrote:

> Will you all please knock this off.  It is very un-professional.
>
> Frank Znidarsic
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 6:56 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden
>
> Hah hah, Eric is such a wuss.   He allows insults from one side but not
> from the other side.
>
> Vorts are basically unwelcomed over there.   It's the new hangout for the
> anti-Rossi anti-LENR crowd since Ecatnews shut down.
>
>
>
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/user/1662-ultrasure/>
> ultrasure <https://www.lenr-forum.com/user/1662-ultrasure/>
> Beginner
> Likes Received <https://www.lenr-forum.com/user/1662-ultrasure/#likes>28
> Posts <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/user-post-list/1662-ultrasure/>43
>
>- 8 hours ago
>
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=63980#post63980>
>
>
>- +1
><https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?pageNo=6#>
>
>
>- #166
>
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=63980#post63980>
>
> *Eric Walker* -- *THE MODERATOR* -- He will decide what the TRUTH is and
> if it is for
> ROSSI then it should not be heard.
>
> *THE LENR BOARD WAS HIJACKED TODAY - JULY 4*
>
> Removed from the LENR Board:
>
> ** kevmol...@gmail.com 's account suspended for two weeks *for incivility
> and being an all-around boor.*
> *( according to ERIC )*
>
> ** sifferkoll 's account suspended for two weeks. It was just a matter of
> time. Next time will probably be permanent.
>
> ERIC WALKER CONTROLS LENR_FORM FOR ALL INDUSTRIAL HEAT COMMENTS.
>
> 
>
> Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Here is Eric Walker's latest move of one of my responses over to his
> garbage thread, without explanation, without notice, and without moving the
> precipitating post which apparently uses the same offensive term of
> 'bullshit'.
>
>
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/user/240-kevmolenr-gmail-com/>Online
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/user/240-kevmolenr-gmail-com/>
> kevmol...@gmail.com
> Intermediate
>
>- 37 minutes ago
>
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=63843#post63843>
>
>
>- New
>-
>
>
>
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/user/2411-woodworker/>
> woodworker wrote:
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=63831#post63831>
> Maybe the reason they aren't "all over this" is because it was bullshit.
> 
> Then it would be in IH's best interest to document it and get the judge to
> see this guy is a lying con man.   That would be in IH's best interest,
> wouldn't it?   You find yourself in a legal tangle with some conman who
> posts all kinds of bullshit and one of those bullshit items is an offer to
> drop the case, would you as a lawyer be all over it or would you just do
> what you did right here and dismiss it as bullshit?
>
>
> But I suppose we should all defer to your extensive legal expertise and
> experience.
>
> Well I'm certainly done deferring to your extensive legal expertise and
> experience because you have been demonstrably wrong several times now.
> I'm just a layman but you're supposedly an expert and a layman is poking
> holes in your bullshit right and left.
> Display Less
>
>
> Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric
> This post has previous versions that are saved.
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/edit-history/?objectType=com.woltlab.wbb.post=63843>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ​Ok then.   At what point are you "disengaging"?   If you "clarify" after
> you "disengage" you haven't really "disengaged", have you?
>
> At what point do you start moderating according to your own posted
> standards? ​
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have
> something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.
>
>
> Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter
> with you.  I think our discussion has provided people with enough
> information to put your initial complaint in context.  I'll be happy to
> continue to discuss the matter with anyone else.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Frank Znidarsic]

Will you all please knock this off.  It is very un-professional.  


Frank Znidarsic



-Original Message-
From: Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden



Hah hah, Eric is such a wuss.   He allows insults from one side but not from 
the other side.   


Vorts are basically unwelcomed over there.   It's the new hangout for the 
anti-Rossi anti-LENR crowd since Ecatnews shut down.   








ultrasure
Beginner


Likes Received
28
Posts
43


8 hours ago
+1

#166

Eric Walker -- THE MODERATOR -- He will decide what the TRUTH is and if it is 
for
ROSSI then it should not be heard.


THE LENR BOARD WAS HIJACKED TODAY - JULY 4


Removed from the LENR Board:


** kevmol...@gmail.com 's account suspended for two weeks for incivility and 
being an all-around boor.
( according to ERIC )


** sifferkoll 's account suspended for two weeks. It was just a matter of time. 
Next time will probably be permanent.


ERIC WALKER CONTROLS LENR_FORM FOR ALL INDUSTRIAL HEAT COMMENTS.





Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric







On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:


Here is Eric Walker's latest move of one of my responses over to his garbage 
thread, without explanation, without notice, and without moving the 
precipitating post which apparently uses the same offensive term of 'bullshit'. 
  





Online
kevmol...@gmail.com
Intermediate


37 minutes ago
New






woodworker wrote:

Maybe the reason they aren't "all over this" is because it was bullshit. 


Then it would be in IH's best interest to document it and get the judge to see 
this guy is a lying con man.   That would be in IH's best interest, wouldn't 
it?   You find yourself in a legal tangle with some conman who posts all kinds 
of bullshit and one of those bullshit items is an offer to drop the case, would 
you as a lawyer be all over it or would you just do what you did right here and 
dismiss it as bullshit?   





But I suppose we should all defer to your extensive legal expertise and 
experience.


Well I'm certainly done deferring to your extensive legal expertise and 
experience because you have been demonstrably wrong several times now.   I'm 
just a layman but you're supposedly an expert and a layman is poking holes in 
your bullshit right and left.   
Display Less



Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric


This post has previous versions that are saved.








On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:


​Ok then.   At what point are you "disengaging"?   If you "clarify" after you 
"disengage" you haven't really "disengaged", have you?   


At what point do you start moderating according to your own posted standards? ​




On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:



You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have 
something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.   




Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter with 
you.  I think our discussion has provided people with enough information to put 
your initial complaint in context.  I'll be happy to continue to discuss the 
matter with anyone else.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Hah hah, Eric is such a wuss.   He allows insults from one side but not
from the other side.

Vorts are basically unwelcomed over there.   It's the new hangout for the
anti-Rossi anti-LENR crowd since Ecatnews shut down.




ultrasure 
Beginner
Likes Received 28
Posts 43

   - 8 hours ago
   



   - +1
   


   - #166
   


*Eric Walker* -- *THE MODERATOR* -- He will decide what the TRUTH is and if
it is for

ROSSI then it should not be heard.


*THE LENR BOARD WAS HIJACKED TODAY - JULY 4*


Removed from the LENR Board:


** kevmol...@gmail.com 's account suspended for two weeks *for incivility
and being an all-around boor.*

*( according to ERIC )*


** sifferkoll 's account suspended for two weeks. It was just a matter of
time. Next time will probably be permanent.


ERIC WALKER CONTROLS LENR_FORM FOR ALL INDUSTRIAL HEAT COMMENTS.





Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric



On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Here is Eric Walker's latest move of one of my responses over to his
> garbage thread, without explanation, without notice, and without moving the
> precipitating post which apparently uses the same offensive term of
> 'bullshit'.
>
>
> Online
> kevmol...@gmail.com
> 
> Intermediate
>
>- 37 minutes ago
>
> 
>
>
>- New
>-
>
>
>
> 
> woodworker wrote:
> 
>
> Maybe the reason they aren't "all over this" is because it was bullshit.
>
> 
>
> Then it would be in IH's best interest to document it and get the judge to
> see this guy is a lying con man.   That would be in IH's best interest,
> wouldn't it?   You find yourself in a legal tangle with some conman who
> posts all kinds of bullshit and one of those bullshit items is an offer to
> drop the case, would you as a lawyer be all over it or would you just do
> what you did right here and dismiss it as bullshit?
>
>
>
> But I suppose we should all defer to your extensive legal expertise and
> experience.
>
>
> Well I'm certainly done deferring to your extensive legal expertise and
> experience because you have been demonstrably wrong several times now.
> I'm just a layman but you're supposedly an expert and a layman is poking
> holes in your bullshit right and left.
> Display Less
>
>
> Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric
>
> This post has previous versions that are saved.
> 
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> ​Ok then.   At what point are you "disengaging"?   If you "clarify" after
>> you "disengage" you haven't really "disengaged", have you?
>>
>> At what point do you start moderating according to your own posted
>> standards? ​
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have
 something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.

>>>
>>> Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter
>>> with you.  I think our discussion has provided people with enough
>>> information to put your initial complaint in context.  I'll be happy to
>>> continue to discuss the matter with anyone else.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Here is Eric Walker's latest move of one of my responses over to his
garbage thread, without explanation, without notice, and without moving the
precipitating post which apparently uses the same offensive term of
'bullshit'.


Online
kevmol...@gmail.com

Intermediate

   - 37 minutes ago
   



   - New
   -




woodworker wrote:


Maybe the reason they aren't "all over this" is because it was bullshit.



Then it would be in IH's best interest to document it and get the judge to
see this guy is a lying con man.   That would be in IH's best interest,
wouldn't it?   You find yourself in a legal tangle with some conman who
posts all kinds of bullshit and one of those bullshit items is an offer to
drop the case, would you as a lawyer be all over it or would you just do
what you did right here and dismiss it as bullshit?



But I suppose we should all defer to your extensive legal expertise and
experience.


Well I'm certainly done deferring to your extensive legal expertise and
experience because you have been demonstrably wrong several times now.
I'm just a layman but you're supposedly an expert and a layman is poking
holes in your bullshit right and left.
Display Less


Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

This post has previous versions that are saved.



On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> ​Ok then.   At what point are you "disengaging"?   If you "clarify" after
> you "disengage" you haven't really "disengaged", have you?
>
> At what point do you start moderating according to your own posted
> standards? ​
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>> You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have
>>> something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.
>>>
>>
>> Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter
>> with you.  I think our discussion has provided people with enough
>> information to put your initial complaint in context.  I'll be happy to
>> continue to discuss the matter with anyone else.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

​Ok then.   At what point are you "disengaging"?   If you "clarify" after
you "disengage" you haven't really "disengaged", have you?

At what point do you start moderating according to your own posted
standards? ​

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have
>> something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.
>>
>
> Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter
> with you.  I think our discussion has provided people with enough
> information to put your initial complaint in context.  I'll be happy to
> continue to discuss the matter with anyone else.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Eric, you said you would not post any more.

The issue isn't that Mary Yugo insults people.  The issue is that you ALLOW
those insults from one side but not another.   You like to read intent in
what I do but you aren't reading intent into what THEY do.

And I'm not even saying to exclude Mary.   I'm saying you should quote
everyone's post who has an insult, take out the insult, and post the
uninsulting post while moving the original post to your garbage thread.   I
think if you did that you would find tons of insults from one side and not
so many from our side.   But you aren't listening, you have your head
firmly up your back side.

"once discussion devolves into trading of insults" -- here is a prime
example.   The discussion devolves as soon as the FIRST insult is thrown,
not the second.   The legal principle is to focus on the guy who throws the
first punch, not the second.   I'm shaking my head at how incredibly stupid
you have set things up and even defend the stupidity.

Vorts will see for themselves whether you pull your head out of your ass.
And there's a thread that I posted about how many replications there are
where you allowed Shanahan to derail even though one of the posted goals of
the moderators is to not allow threads to get derailed.

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content
>> but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only
>> one side of the insults.
>>
>
> Crass language and attacks are not content; they're just ways of
> undermining a civil discussion.  Sometimes Mary insults people, but this is
> more because she has no filter rather than because she's seeking to
> escalate a discussion into a fight.  There is no charge to her insults.
> She almost always focuses on substantive points.  To exclude Mary, whose
> views are controversial and disagreeable to many, would be to subtly shape
> the debate and exclude someone who has occasionally been a source of
> interesting information.
>
> Debate consists of arguments; once a discussion devolves into attacks and
> the trading of insults, it is no longer a debate.  Discussion with Mary
> never devolves into the simple trading of insults as she almost always
> addresses some substantive point.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have
> something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.
>

Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter
with you.  I think our discussion has provided people with enough
information to put your initial complaint in context.  I'll be happy to
continue to discuss the matter with anyone else.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Geez, Eric, it's like pulling teeth.   You don't see where the source of
the problem is.   The source is when someone STARTS insults and gets away
with it.   You let some people on your forum insult away.   Now you want to
attract Vorts who are going to have to go through the same kind of bullshit
in order to post on your forum without going on probation.   You don't even
see the problem.

You like to characterize some posts as "subtle" while others are "crass"
but NOWHERE on your forum is that bullshit delineation outlined so that
people can know ahead of time.   It's completely full of shit.

You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have
something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.

At least the Vorts know what they're up against.   You may not realize this
that I did you a huge favor but I'm not sure it's a good thing to give
Vorts warning of a completely unfair setup where you are going to look
through Vortex but not Shane's nor Mary's history of trolling.Eric:
Pull your head out.

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed
>> at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a
>> one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you
>> put ME on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.
>>
>
> In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such
> as woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass
> and sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent
> to you.  Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we
> seek to attract.  We would ideally *not* attract pugnacious participants
> such as yourself, but there's only so much we can do.
>
> You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I
>> WAS PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up.
>>
>
> Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said
> you were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR
> Forum), you were basically put in the category of participants such as
> Sifferkoll the minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in
> action on Vortex, so your reputation proceeded you.
>
> I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at
> LENR Forum at this point and allow you the last word.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 >>We would ideally not attract pugnacious participants
Galileo was pugnacious


On Monday, 3 July 2017, 16:11, Eric Walker  wrote:
 

 Hi Kevin,
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed at 
least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a 
one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you put ME 
on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.


In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such as 
woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass and 
sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent to you.  
Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we seek to 
attract.  We would ideally not attract pugnacious participants such as 
yourself, but there's only so much we can do.

You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I WAS 
PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up. 


Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said you 
were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR Forum), 
you were basically put in the category of participants such as Sifferkoll the 
minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in action on Vortex, 
so your reputation proceeded you.
I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at LENR 
Forum at this point and allow you the last word.

Eric


   

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

Hi Kevin,

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content
> but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only
> one side of the insults.
>

Crass language and attacks are not content; they're just ways of
undermining a civil discussion.  Sometimes Mary insults people, but this is
more because she has no filter rather than because she's seeking to
escalate a discussion into a fight.  There is no charge to her insults.
She almost always focuses on substantive points.  To exclude Mary, whose
views are controversial and disagreeable to many, would be to subtly shape
the debate and exclude someone who has occasionally been a source of
interesting information.

Debate consists of arguments; once a discussion devolves into attacks and
the trading of insults, it is no longer a debate.  Discussion with Mary
never devolves into the simple trading of insults as she almost always
addresses some substantive point.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

Hi Kevin,

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed
> at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a
> one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you
> put ME on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.
>

In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such
as woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass
and sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent
to you.  Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we
seek to attract.  We would ideally *not* attract pugnacious participants
such as yourself, but there's only so much we can do.

You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I
> WAS PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up.
>

Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said
you were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR
Forum), you were basically put in the category of participants such as
Sifferkoll the minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in
action on Vortex, so your reputation proceeded you.

I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at LENR
Forum at this point and allow you the last word.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Good post from EcatWorld, pulling some items from behind a paywall:


Engineer48  • 20 hours ago

 [hush]​[hide comment]

Some details of the initial shots fired by IH & Rossi:

https://www.law360.com/tria...


Law360, Miami (June 30, 2017, 9:57 PM EDT) -- An Italian inventor suing
over an $89 million licensing agreement for an energy catalyzer patent
opened trial Friday in Miami, telling jurors that the licensees had
repeatedly touted the technology and said it had "potential to change the
world" before reneging on the agreement.
Brian Chaiken of Perlman Bajandas Yevoli & Albright PL, who represents
Italian inventor Andrea Rossi, told the jury that Rossi and his Leonardo
Corp. are owed $89 million from licensees Cherokee Investment Partners LLC
and related entity Industrial Heat LLC, which boasted about acquiring the
technology for a low-energy nuclear reactor called the E-Cat through a 2012
agreement, but failed to live up to their end of the deal.

"They wasted no time telling investors and potential investors that E-Cat
actually works and that they were in possession of the technology," Chaiken
said.

At one point, in an investment memorandum, International Heat said the
future success of the company was dependent on one key individual: Rossi,
according to Chaiken.

"They're telling their investors they've got LeBron James on their team and
if they're going to the NBA Finals, they're going to ride him all the way
there," he said.

But International Heat changed its tune in May 2015, he said, when it
successfully sold 4 percent of the company for $50 million. After that
investment, Chaiken said the narrative changed, and the company began to
say that Rossi was unreliable and that the test results of his E-Cat
technology were unreliable.

Christopher Pace of Jones Day — who represents International Heat,
Cherokee, its founder Thomas Darden and manager John T. Vaughn — told
jurors a different story, one in which his clients were deliberately lied
to regarding the performance of the E-Cat.

Under the terms of the 2012 agreement, totaling $100 million, International
Heat was supposed to make three payments: first, a $1.5 million payment to
buy the E-Cat equipment, then a $10 million fee for the technology, and
finally an $89 million payment once the equipment passed performance tests
after 400 days of operation.

That performance test allegedly took place in a warehouse in Doral,
Florida, but Pace told jurors the whole thing was a sham.

He said his clients let Rossi take the equipment from North Carolina, where
the defendants are located, to Florida because Rossi said he had found a
customer that wanted to use the E-Cat and could test it in a real-world
scenario. Rossi told them the customer, JM Products, was an affiliate of
Johnson Matthey, a U.K.-based multinational chemical company.

But Pace said his clients later discovered that JM Products was a sham
company set up by third-party defendant Henry Johnson at the direction of
Rossi.

Pace told jurors that his clients tried to gain access to JM Products'
warehouse but were blocked and told that the company was engaged in a
secretive manufacturing process. When International Heat finally got an
engineer into the warehouse, they found clear problems, he said.

The amount of water that Rossi claimed the E-Cat machines were turning into
steam each day — about 9,000 gallons — was impossible, because at most, the
pumps available there could pump only 5,000 gallons of water per day, Pace
said. International Heat had also called Florida Power & Light to check on
the electricity records for the warehouse and found discrepancies with what
Rossi was reporting, according to Pace.

He said the defendants acknowledged to investors that Rossi was a risk
because of previous failed business ventures and a reputation for being
difficult, but they gave him latitude because they felt that he had a
remarkable technology that produced clean energy cheaply. Pace argued that
it is Rossi who should refund the $11 million paid out by the defendants
because of the lies he told them.

"Those E-Cat boxes weren't filled with magic," he told jurors. "They were
simply filled with lies."

The trial, which got off to a rocky start after the first jury was
dismissed Thursday, is slated to last five weeks.

Leonardo and Rossi are represented by John W. Annesser, Brian Chaiken and
D. Porpoise Evans of Perlman Bajandas Yevoli & Albright PL.

The defendants are represented by Christopher R.J. Pace, Christopher M.
Lomax and Christina Mastrucci of Jones Day.

The case is Andrea Rossi et al. v. Thomas Darden et al., case number
1:16-cv-21199, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Eric:
I notice that you didn't bother to address my example.   Twice, now.
Readers will be the judge of your moderating capabilities.

You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content
but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only
one side of the insults.   Readers will be the judge

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> Eric, you're completely full of shit.
>>
>> The example I posted wasn't even an insult and it was moved to some other
>> thread.
>
>
> Here are some of your posts that were moved; readers will be the judge of
> how much value you added to the conversation in posting them, and how much
> they simply served to needlessly make the place a little more toxic:
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62695#post62695
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62652#post62652
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62662#post62662
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62674#post62674
>
> Once I saw that you were in full-on attack mode, I began to move your
> posts to the bargain bin with prejudice, in order to avoid allowing the
> place to devolve into the war that you sought to bring about.
>
> And NO, you are NOT giving notice that certain posts have been moved to
>> another thread.   NOT EVEN ONE of my posts had that notification.
>
>
> How about these two notices?  The first in the bargain bin thread, where
> everyone but you will have known to look, and the second in the thread
> where you were posting your belligerent stuff:
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62688#post62688
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-
> darden-developments-part-2/?postID=62696#post62696
>
>
>> You're so concerned about spam that it goes down to NOT EVEN ONE
>> notification onthread until you're getting questioned about it.
>
>
> Hopefully we’ve cleared up this misconception.
>
> You say it was a judgement call; your judgement is called into question as
>> a result.
>>
>> Some of this stuff is so simple.   I've seen comments that were moved to
>> another thread but they had already been quoted.   So what you could do...
>> what you should do... what I would do with your capabilities...   is just
>> quote the comment, remove the offending remarks and say that the original
>> post was moved to the timeout/penalty box thread.Then everyone is on
>> notice.
>>
>> Instead you prefer to put people on "probation" without them even knowing
>> about it.
>
>
> You were given a request and then a warning, as I said above.  You were on
> a roll, and if you were allowed to continue, you would have brought the
> conversation down a notch, which you did, while you were in your zone.
>
>
>> Also, if you're going to be sending some comments that contain insults
>> over to other threads then you should start with the guy who starts with
>> the insults.   Your treatment of the issue has been completely one-sided.
>> I did not start with the insults against the lawyer, he started in on me.
>
>
> Part of your difficulty may be that you’re willing to escalate what you
> perceive to be subtle slights into a full-blown brawl.  Subtle slights that
> don’t use foul language have a much easier time making it through than
> full-on ad homs with crass language.
>
> You value the newbie lawyer over someone like me who's been signed on for
>> 2 years because, well, he claims to be a lawyer even though someone
>> upthread tried to dox him and question the legitimacy of his claim.   For a
>> lawyer, he sure missed quite a few legal points.
>
>
> My perception, and it’s just my perception, is that he knows something
> about the law from years of experience practicing it.  That does count for
> something.
>
> Mary Yugo isn't even a woman.   He got booted rightfully so from this
>> forum and he/she's trolling yours.   If you had wisdom you'd remove her/it
>> from your forum as well.
>
>
> In giving Mary the boot, we would be editorializing the content.
>
>
>> You should just admit that you made a mistake and hope that vorts will
>> want to head on over to your discussion.
>
>
> I’m quite happy with my treatment of you, as it's kept the level of
> conversation over at LENR Forum from taking a dive as a consequence of your
> belligerent interactions, and you’re still on probation.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Eric, you're completely full of shit.
>>
>> The example I posted wasn't even an insult and it was moved to some other
>> thread.   And NO, you are NOT giving notice that certain posts have been
>> moved to another thread.   NOT EVEN ONE of my posts had that notification.
>>   You're so concerned about spam that it goes down to NOT EVEN ONE
>> notification onthread until 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Eric:

Of COURSE you're happy with your own moderating because you are so
one-sided at the approach.

You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed
at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a
one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you
put ME on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.

You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I
WAS PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up.


Here is the latest.   Someone says I post a lie even though it was Rossi
who posted it.   When are you going to put a stop to the bullshit that you
have power to stop?

Dewey Weaver wrote:


Kevmo - not going to let you get away with the Rossi IP license buyout
offer mention - that is yet another lie and it did not happen.


Regarding your other non-stop creative Planet Rossi inference pattern- do
you think that your "Rossi realization" scenario included getting caught
claiming that an empty reactor was generating as much excess heat output as
a "loaded reactor"?

Dewey: It has been shown upthread that Rossi claimed to offer the IP
buyout. It may be a Rossi lie but it IS a claim on his blog, along with
other bloviating claims that many of us would like to see addressed. So
quit calling it a lie unless you can prove that Rossi did not claim it.


The moderators of this forum preclude me from responding to your "loaded
insults" so I would suggest you quit posting them.




On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> Eric, you're completely full of shit.
>>
>> The example I posted wasn't even an insult and it was moved to some other
>> thread.
>
>
> Here are some of your posts that were moved; readers will be the judge of
> how much value you added to the conversation in posting them, and how much
> they simply served to needlessly make the place a little more toxic:
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62695#post62695
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62652#post62652
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62662#post62662
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62674#post62674
>
> Once I saw that you were in full-on attack mode, I began to move your
> posts to the bargain bin with prejudice, in order to avoid allowing the
> place to devolve into the war that you sought to bring about.
>
> And NO, you are NOT giving notice that certain posts have been moved to
>> another thread.   NOT EVEN ONE of my posts had that notification.
>
>
> How about these two notices?  The first in the bargain bin thread, where
> everyone but you will have known to look, and the second in the thread
> where you were posting your belligerent stuff:
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62688#post62688
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-
> darden-developments-part-2/?postID=62696#post62696
>
>
>> You're so concerned about spam that it goes down to NOT EVEN ONE
>> notification onthread until you're getting questioned about it.
>
>
> Hopefully we’ve cleared up this misconception.
>
> You say it was a judgement call; your judgement is called into question as
>> a result.
>>
>> Some of this stuff is so simple.   I've seen comments that were moved to
>> another thread but they had already been quoted.   So what you could do...
>> what you should do... what I would do with your capabilities...   is just
>> quote the comment, remove the offending remarks and say that the original
>> post was moved to the timeout/penalty box thread.Then everyone is on
>> notice.
>>
>> Instead you prefer to put people on "probation" without them even knowing
>> about it.
>
>
> You were given a request and then a warning, as I said above.  You were on
> a roll, and if you were allowed to continue, you would have brought the
> conversation down a notch, which you did, while you were in your zone.
>
>
>> Also, if you're going to be sending some comments that contain insults
>> over to other threads then you should start with the guy who starts with
>> the insults.   Your treatment of the issue has been completely one-sided.
>> I did not start with the insults against the lawyer, he started in on me.
>
>
> Part of your difficulty may be that you’re willing to escalate what you
> perceive to be subtle slights into a full-blown brawl.  Subtle slights that
> don’t use foul language have a much easier time making it through than
> full-on ad homs with crass language.
>
> You value the newbie lawyer over someone like me who's been signed on for
>> 2 years because, well, he claims to be a lawyer even though someone
>> upthread tried to dox him and question the legitimacy of his 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

Hi Kevin,

Eric, you're completely full of shit.
>
> The example I posted wasn't even an insult and it was moved to some other
> thread.


Here are some of your posts that were moved; readers will be the judge of
how much value you added to the conversation in posting them, and how much
they simply served to needlessly make the place a little more toxic:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=62695#post62695
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=62652#post62652
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=62662#post62662
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=62674#post62674

Once I saw that you were in full-on attack mode, I began to move your posts
to the bargain bin with prejudice, in order to avoid allowing the place to
devolve into the war that you sought to bring about.

And NO, you are NOT giving notice that certain posts have been moved to
> another thread.   NOT EVEN ONE of my posts had that notification.


How about these two notices?  The first in the bargain bin thread, where
everyone but you will have known to look, and the second in the thread
where you were posting your belligerent stuff:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=62688#post62688
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=62696#post62696


> You're so concerned about spam that it goes down to NOT EVEN ONE
> notification onthread until you're getting questioned about it.


Hopefully we’ve cleared up this misconception.

You say it was a judgement call; your judgement is called into question as
> a result.
>
> Some of this stuff is so simple.   I've seen comments that were moved to
> another thread but they had already been quoted.   So what you could do...
> what you should do... what I would do with your capabilities...   is just
> quote the comment, remove the offending remarks and say that the original
> post was moved to the timeout/penalty box thread.Then everyone is on
> notice.
>
> Instead you prefer to put people on "probation" without them even knowing
> about it.


You were given a request and then a warning, as I said above.  You were on
a roll, and if you were allowed to continue, you would have brought the
conversation down a notch, which you did, while you were in your zone.


> Also, if you're going to be sending some comments that contain insults
> over to other threads then you should start with the guy who starts with
> the insults.   Your treatment of the issue has been completely one-sided.
> I did not start with the insults against the lawyer, he started in on me.


Part of your difficulty may be that you’re willing to escalate what you
perceive to be subtle slights into a full-blown brawl.  Subtle slights that
don’t use foul language have a much easier time making it through than
full-on ad homs with crass language.

You value the newbie lawyer over someone like me who's been signed on for 2
> years because, well, he claims to be a lawyer even though someone upthread
> tried to dox him and question the legitimacy of his claim.   For a lawyer,
> he sure missed quite a few legal points.


My perception, and it’s just my perception, is that he knows something
about the law from years of experience practicing it.  That does count for
something.

Mary Yugo isn't even a woman.   He got booted rightfully so from this forum
> and he/she's trolling yours.   If you had wisdom you'd remove her/it from
> your forum as well.


In giving Mary the boot, we would be editorializing the content.


> You should just admit that you made a mistake and hope that vorts will
> want to head on over to your discussion.


I’m quite happy with my treatment of you, as it's kept the level of
conversation over at LENR Forum from taking a dive as a consequence of your
belligerent interactions, and you’re still on probation.

Eric


On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Eric, you're completely full of shit.
>
> The example I posted wasn't even an insult and it was moved to some other
> thread.   And NO, you are NOT giving notice that certain posts have been
> moved to another thread.   NOT EVEN ONE of my posts had that notification.
>   You're so concerned about spam that it goes down to NOT EVEN ONE
> notification onthread until you're getting questioned about it.   You
> say it was a judgement call; your judgement is called into question as a
> result.
>
> Some of this stuff is so simple.   I've seen comments that were moved to
> another thread but they had already been quoted.   So what you could do...
> what you should do... what I would do with your capabilities...   is just
> quote the comment, remove the offending remarks and say that the original
> post was moved to the timeout/penalty box thread.Then everyone is on
> notice.   Instead you prefer to put people on "probation" without them 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Eric, you're completely full of shit.

The example I posted wasn't even an insult and it was moved to some other
thread.   And NO, you are NOT giving notice that certain posts have been
moved to another thread.   NOT EVEN ONE of my posts had that notification.
  You're so concerned about spam that it goes down to NOT EVEN ONE
notification onthread until you're getting questioned about it.   You
say it was a judgement call; your judgement is called into question as a
result.

Some of this stuff is so simple.   I've seen comments that were moved to
another thread but they had already been quoted.   So what you could do...
what you should do... what I would do with your capabilities...   is just
quote the comment, remove the offending remarks and say that the original
post was moved to the timeout/penalty box thread.Then everyone is on
notice.   Instead you prefer to put people on "probation" without them even
knowing about it.

Also, if you're going to be sending some comments that contain insults over
to other threads then you should start with the guy who starts with the
insults.   Your treatment of the issue has been completely one-sided.   I
did not start with the insults against the lawyer, he started in on me.
You value the newbie lawyer over someone like me who's been signed on for 2
years because, well, he claims to be a lawyer even though someone upthread
tried to dox him and question the legitimacy of his claim.   For a lawyer,
he sure missed quite a few legal points.   But that didn't stop him from
insulting someone else on the forum.   When you review my comments you will
see that I did not start any insults, my insults are responsive.

Mary Yugo isn't even a woman.   He got booted rightfully so from this forum
and he/she's trolling yours.   If you had wisdom you'd remove her/it from
your forum as well.

I'm not "new" to the forum, I signed up more than 2 years ago.   But it was
a backwater then so it fell off my radar.   I am "new" to Rossi vs. Darden
because it's been sitting on the back legal burner for more than a year.
You have other commenters that are hurling insults.You should just
admit that you made a mistake and hope that vorts will want to head on over
to your discussion.   And also, you should make your title say "Moderator".
   You're far too thin skinned to jump in as an untitled moderator.



On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> Comments get moved to another thread without notification.
>>
>
> When people such as yourself flood the forum with throwaway comments, we
> moderators would spam the place to give as many notifications.  Had you
> known how things are done on LENR Forum, you would have known that
> throwaway comments with crass and insulting language get moved to a
> separate thread and know where to find them.  We generally put a note at
> the bottom of a comment once it's been moved to let people know about
> this.  You did not know that LENR Forum does this, because you dived right
> in with your throwaway insults rather than getting to know the place.
>
>
>> Commenters can get put "on probation" without notification.
>
>
> We put trolls and would-be brawlers on probation.
>
> You yourself are a moderator but it doesn't say that on your title.
>
>
> I gave my reasons for this in an earlier response to you, which you do not
> mention.  I'll link to my reply:
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62766#post62766
>
> You allow insults from some people but not others in a one-sided fashion,
>> again without notification.
>
>
> It's invariably a judgment call.  If there's either a substantive point
> that has been made, or the person is known to make good points and insult
> everyone equally and without an emotional charge, they're less likely to
> have a comment moved.  If the insult is obviously charged and the comment
> brings no useful additional information, it's likely to be moved.  We do
> not apply a rote formula.  We apply judgment in an effort to raise the
> level of conversation.  This weighs somewhat more heavily against posters
> who have little substantive to offer.  That's just the nature of the
> situation.
>
> So those of us who would like to go over there will have to jump through
>> your unpublished moderation guidelines
>> in order to avoid "probation".
>>
>
> Or you could just lurk for awhile and see how things are done.  It's a
> natural thing to do when coming to a new forum to try watch and observe and
> see how things are done.
>
>
>> There aren't that many rules over here on Vortex but even still, some of
>> your more vociferous and full-of-shit members over there have been banned
>> from Vortex, like MaryYugo.
>>
>
> Mary Yugo has always been controversial, but she almost invariably
> addresses matters of substance rather than intending to rile up other forum
> members and 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Adrian Ashfield]

Jones,
Having been involved with a number of manufacturing plants, including building 
several new ones, my impression was the time and labor required for the 
supposed heat exchanger were greatly exaggerated. 
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Jul 1, 2017 10:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Looks like things are finally underway in Miami, barring a hurricane. 
July is bit early for one, but  there are already strong signs of a 
tropical depression, so to speak.

Interesting thread has turned up on LENR forum - which has been joined 
by a hand's-on expert, in fact he claims to be a pipe-fitter.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?pageNo=313

Rossiphiles will of course claim without any proof that this poster is 
being paid by friends of Darden to influence a jury. Doubt it (that 
would be very risky) ... but there is no doubt that the opinion of a 
professional pipe-fitter could determine where Rossi spends the next 5 
years, even if he wins a dollar verdict. AR really screwed up his 
deposition royally, and that will haunt him.

If Rossi has perjured himself during depositions in regard to the 
imaginary heat-exchanger removal, which many observers are absolutely 
certain that he has done, it will not be glossed over. That prior bit of 
dishonesty could be his downfall, even if he wins a verdict or 
back-tracks when he gives direct testimony... maybe he claims amnesia or 
CLD/HPD... (very little doubt that Rossi is afflicted with the latter 
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder).

But his attorney should have warned Rossi that depositions are sworn 
testimony too, and Federal Courts consider perjury to be more serious 
than Rossi may realize. Beware, Andrea and beware to his attorney also. 
"Subornation of perjury" is actually frowned on as much or more than the 
act itself. Most ironic if the two of them win millions but cannot enjoy 
it for several years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subornation_of_perjury

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

He should put up a PayPal link for donations... or is there on in place?


Ah ha.

https://www.gofundme.com/cold-fusion-journalism

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jones Beene]

Looks like things are finally underway in Miami, barring a hurricane. 
July is bit early for one, but  there are already strong signs of a 
tropical depression, so to speak.


Interesting thread has turned up on LENR forum - which has been joined 
by a hand's-on expert, in fact he claims to be a pipe-fitter.


https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?pageNo=313

Rossiphiles will of course claim without any proof that this poster is 
being paid by friends of Darden to influence a jury. Doubt it (that 
would be very risky) ... but there is no doubt that the opinion of a 
professional pipe-fitter could determine where Rossi spends the next 5 
years, even if he wins a dollar verdict. AR really screwed up his 
deposition royally, and that will haunt him.


If Rossi has perjured himself during depositions in regard to the 
imaginary heat-exchanger removal, which many observers are absolutely 
certain that he has done, it will not be glossed over. That prior bit of 
dishonesty could be his downfall, even if he wins a verdict or 
back-tracks when he gives direct testimony... maybe he claims amnesia or 
CLD/HPD... (very little doubt that Rossi is afflicted with the latter 
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder).


But his attorney should have warned Rossi that depositions are sworn 
testimony too, and Federal Courts consider perjury to be more serious 
than Rossi may realize. Beware, Andrea and beware to his attorney also. 
"Subornation of perjury" is actually frowned on as much or more than the 
act itself. Most ironic if the two of them win millions but cannot enjoy 
it for several years.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subornation_of_perjury

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Daniel Rocha]

Ice Pick.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Che]

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

I personally believe that Rossi has at least ideas about how to make LENR
> work, possibly he has a solution. Let him reveal that. He has promised
> after the trial to show us. Rossi looks not as a fraudster to me. He act as
> a passionate entrepreneur in my opinion. It is required to be an optimist
> to get that kind of label. Sometimes the entrepreneurial spirit contains a
> teaspoon of wishful thinking as you call it. It can be labeled vision also.
>

Whether most of the people here accept it or not, it's damned obvious that
the intrusion of *capitalist relations* into scientific research is
_exactly_ what has produced this whole mess -- and many, many others -- in
the first place. And money-grubbing capitalist mischief-making ONLY enters
into the equation at all, because scientific research *is* -- *personally*
-- horrifically monetarily expensive.

But: it does not HAVE to be, eh?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Che]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>
> It seems that Rossi has spent his adult life cultivating such people and
> then stealing from them. Unfortunately, in the course of doing this, he may
> have destroyed the last hope of funding for cold fusion. Unless the Texas
> Tech project pans out, this time cold fusion may be gone for good. It will
> be forgotten.
>
> - Jed
>



If cold fusion is objectively real -- it cannot *ever* be actually
forgotten -- let alone _remain_ forgotten.
Especially in this day and age of the Internet and mass communications.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

Comments get moved to another thread without notification.
>

When people such as yourself flood the forum with throwaway comments, we
moderators would spam the place to give as many notifications.  Had you
known how things are done on LENR Forum, you would have known that
throwaway comments with crass and insulting language get moved to a
separate thread and know where to find them.  We generally put a note at
the bottom of a comment once it's been moved to let people know about
this.  You did not know that LENR Forum does this, because you dived right
in with your throwaway insults rather than getting to know the place.


> Commenters can get put "on probation" without notification.


We put trolls and would-be brawlers on probation.

You yourself are a moderator but it doesn't say that on your title.


I gave my reasons for this in an earlier response to you, which you do not
mention.  I'll link to my reply:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=62766#post62766

You allow insults from some people but not others in a one-sided fashion,
> again without notification.


It's invariably a judgment call.  If there's either a substantive point
that has been made, or the person is known to make good points and insult
everyone equally and without an emotional charge, they're less likely to
have a comment moved.  If the insult is obviously charged and the comment
brings no useful additional information, it's likely to be moved.  We do
not apply a rote formula.  We apply judgment in an effort to raise the
level of conversation.  This weighs somewhat more heavily against posters
who have little substantive to offer.  That's just the nature of the
situation.

So those of us who would like to go over there will have to jump through
> your unpublished moderation guidelines
> in order to avoid "probation".
>

Or you could just lurk for awhile and see how things are done.  It's a
natural thing to do when coming to a new forum to try watch and observe and
see how things are done.


> There aren't that many rules over here on Vortex but even still, some of
> your more vociferous and full-of-shit members over there have been banned
> from Vortex, like MaryYugo.
>

Mary Yugo has always been controversial, but she almost invariably
addresses matters of substance rather than intending to rile up other forum
members and start a fight.  She insults people, but her aim is not to start
a brawl.  She has brought up many good points about Rossi over the years,
so she gets a little bit of latitude to be a character.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Adrian Ashfield]

Well said.
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 30, 2017 2:33 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden



Jed,
I am not going in to a long discussion with you but I think your 'besser 
wisser' attitude needs a comment.
You are saying the ERV report is proof of fraud. Well, that is using a very low 
level to qualify a proof. The truth is that you with some support of IH has 
made that conclusion and so maybe others also. I have not even read the report. 
It would mean nothing to me. Even if I think my knowledge of science exceeds 
junior high. Technical flaws can have many explanations. One is the one you 
hold as the obvious truth. 
In another logical shortcut you use vague indications from one of Rossi's 
competitors as evidence that Rossi is a fraudster. My guess is that the same 
competitor has negative indications about all the other players in the field. 
The above I mention as a background showing your ill-will or lack of positive 
thinking. You dismiss anyone else'es opinion as wishful thinking. I doubt you 
are a qualified judge of others opinion or conclusions.
I have no idea about to which degree Rossi has anything contributing to LENR or 
not. However, it will show. In the conflict with IH the outcome is not 
determined by facts regarding Rossi's contribution to LENR but by a legal 
system very few can understand or predict. Sure is that  IH has not handle the 
issues the way I would have expected from a serious investment company. Maybe 
they are smarter than I, maybe they have other ideas about what is fair and how 
to conduct business. Reality is that we are different.
You say that Rossi is hurting the possibilities for LENR funding in the future. 
I would say that his contribution to the renewed interest in LENR is evident. 
He has stirred up the interest more than any other player. Your idea that LENR 
will be discredited from a possible failure by Rossi to show a result is 
flawed. You are searching for critic against Rossi even without minimal logic 
involved. Due to Rossi's involvement we have many people doing experiments and 
that is positive. I personally believe that Rossi has at least ideas about how 
to make LENR work, possibly he has a solution. Let him reveal that. He has 
promised after the trial to show us. Rossi looks not as a fraudster to me. He 
act as a passionate entrepreneur in my opinion. It is required to be an 
optimist to get that kind of label. Sometimes the entrepreneurial spirit 
contains a teaspoon of wishful thinking as you call it. It can be labeled 
vision also.
Let us wait and see.
The ongoing trial will either:
- give Rossi money and ability to show that he is genuine.
- give  ability to IH to support other LENR ideas.
- change nothing and all parties can go ahead as they see fit.
My only question to you is why do you find it so beneficial to label people. As 
I see it you have no qualification in that field. Personally I think very few 
if any has that ability.
Lennart
 
 






Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros




lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899


Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)








On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:


Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
 
Whoa. The ERV report is not really self-evident proof of anything toa jury 
- other than that it supposedly provides a basis for Penon'sconclusion. 
These are average citizens who don't do data, so tospeak.




I hope you are wrong about that, but I know nothing about trials and juries, so 
I cannot judge.


 

A top scientist could believe what you state, and I suspect that 95out of 
100 scientists might agree with you.



More like 999,999 out of a million I think. As Smith showed, anyone who agrees 
the laws of thermodynamics are valid will see this is fraud.


I meant that technically knowledgeable people will see that the Penon report 
describes a blatant fraud. I don't know about the man on the street. Obviously, 
as we see here and at some web sites, there are people who have heard of the 
laws of thermodynamics yet who still believe in Rossi. They are in thrall to 
him. Wishful thinking has overwhelmed their ability to think rationally and do 
junior-high-school physics.


It seems that Rossi has spent his adult life cultivating such people and then 
stealing from them. Unfortunately, in the course of doing this, he may have 
destroyed the last hope of funding for cold fusion. Unless the Texas Tech 
project pans out, this time cold fusion may be gone for good. It will be 
forgotten.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Alain Sepeda]

the report is not so convincing, except it have no value, a joke for the
most kind.
what is convincing, like for Lugano and DGT Milano, is that absence of any
serious and credible answer.
For me at this stage, it is definitive.

if Rossi have something, he sure have lied and manipulated his partners
beyond what the worst startup diva can do.
Anyone who support the possibility that Rossi have a technology have to
realize what he have done to his partners.

Of course if there is nothing, except repeated ideas coming from we
community, all is more simple and logical.

2017-06-30 3:44 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>
>> Whoa. The ERV report is not really self-evident proof of anything to a
>> jury - other than that it supposedly provides a basis for Penon's
>> conclusion. These are average citizens who don't do data, so to speak.
>>
>
> I hope you are wrong about that, but I know nothing about trials and
> juries, so I cannot judge.
>
>
>
>> A top scientist could believe what you state, and I suspect that 95 out
>> of 100 scientists might agree with you.
>>
>
> More like 999,999 out of a million I think. As Smith showed, anyone who
> agrees the laws of thermodynamics are valid will see this is fraud.
>
> I meant that technically knowledgeable people will see that the Penon
> report describes a blatant fraud. I don't know about the man on the street.
> Obviously, as we see here and at some web sites, there are people who have
> heard of the laws of thermodynamics yet who still believe in Rossi. They
> are in thrall to him. Wishful thinking has overwhelmed their ability to
> think rationally and do junior-high-school physics.
>
> It seems that Rossi has spent his adult life cultivating such people and
> then stealing from them. Unfortunately, in the course of doing this, he may
> have destroyed the last hope of funding for cold fusion. Unless the Texas
> Tech project pans out, this time cold fusion may be gone for good. It will
> be forgotten.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
I am not going in to a long discussion with you but I think your 'besser
wisser' attitude needs a comment.
You are saying the ERV report is proof of fraud. Well, that is using a very
low level to qualify a proof. The truth is that you with some support of IH
has made that conclusion and so maybe others also. I have not even read the
report. It would mean nothing to me. Even if I think my knowledge of
science exceeds junior high. Technical flaws can have many explanations.
One is the one you hold as the obvious truth.
In another logical shortcut you use vague indications from one of Rossi's
competitors as evidence that Rossi is a fraudster. My guess is that the
same competitor has negative indications about all the other players in the
field.
The above I mention as a background showing your ill-will or lack of
positive thinking. You dismiss anyone else'es opinion as wishful thinking.
I doubt you are a qualified judge of others opinion or conclusions.
I have no idea about to which degree Rossi has anything contributing to
LENR or not. However, it will show. In the conflict with IH the outcome is
not determined by facts regarding Rossi's contribution to LENR but by a
legal system very few can understand or predict. Sure is that  IH has not
handle the issues the way I would have expected from a serious investment
company. Maybe they are smarter than I, maybe they have other ideas about
what is fair and how to conduct business. Reality is that we are different.
You say that Rossi is hurting the possibilities for LENR funding in the
future. I would say that his contribution to the renewed interest in LENR
is evident. He has stirred up the interest more than any other player. Your
idea that LENR will be discredited from a possible failure by Rossi to show
a result is flawed. You are searching for critic against Rossi even without
minimal logic involved. Due to Rossi's involvement we have many people
doing experiments and that is positive. I personally believe that Rossi has
at least ideas about how to make LENR work, possibly he has a solution. Let
him reveal that. He has promised after the trial to show us. Rossi looks
not as a fraudster to me. He act as a passionate entrepreneur in my
opinion. It is required to be an optimist to get that kind of label.
Sometimes the entrepreneurial spirit contains a teaspoon of wishful
thinking as you call it. It can be labeled vision also.
Let us wait and see.
The ongoing trial will either:
- give Rossi money and ability to show that he is genuine.
- give  ability to IH to support other LENR ideas.
- change nothing and all parties can go ahead as they see fit.
My only question to you is why do you find it so beneficial to label
people. As I see it you have no qualification in that field. Personally I
think very few if any has that ability.
Lennart



Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>
>> Whoa. The ERV report is not really self-evident proof of anything to a
>> jury - other than that it supposedly provides a basis for Penon's
>> conclusion. These are average citizens who don't do data, so to speak.
>>
>
> I hope you are wrong about that, but I know nothing about trials and
> juries, so I cannot judge.
>
>
>
>> A top scientist could believe what you state, and I suspect that 95 out
>> of 100 scientists might agree with you.
>>
>
> More like 999,999 out of a million I think. As Smith showed, anyone who
> agrees the laws of thermodynamics are valid will see this is fraud.
>
> I meant that technically knowledgeable people will see that the Penon
> report describes a blatant fraud. I don't know about the man on the street.
> Obviously, as we see here and at some web sites, there are people who have
> heard of the laws of thermodynamics yet who still believe in Rossi. They
> are in thrall to him. Wishful thinking has overwhelmed their ability to
> think rationally and do junior-high-school physics.
>
> It seems that Rossi has spent his adult life cultivating such people and
> then stealing from them. Unfortunately, in the course of doing this, he may
> have destroyed the last hope of funding for cold fusion. Unless the Texas
> Tech project pans out, this time cold fusion may be gone for good. It will
> be forgotten.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Whoa. The ERV report is not really self-evident proof of anything to a
> jury - other than that it supposedly provides a basis for Penon's
> conclusion. These are average citizens who don't do data, so to speak.
>

I hope you are wrong about that, but I know nothing about trials and
juries, so I cannot judge.



> A top scientist could believe what you state, and I suspect that 95 out of
> 100 scientists might agree with you.
>

More like 999,999 out of a million I think. As Smith showed, anyone who
agrees the laws of thermodynamics are valid will see this is fraud.

I meant that technically knowledgeable people will see that the Penon
report describes a blatant fraud. I don't know about the man on the street.
Obviously, as we see here and at some web sites, there are people who have
heard of the laws of thermodynamics yet who still believe in Rossi. They
are in thrall to him. Wishful thinking has overwhelmed their ability to
think rationally and do junior-high-school physics.

It seems that Rossi has spent his adult life cultivating such people and
then stealing from them. Unfortunately, in the course of doing this, he may
have destroyed the last hope of funding for cold fusion. Unless the Texas
Tech project pans out, this time cold fusion may be gone for good. It will
be forgotten.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jed Rothwell]

bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:


> You said,
>
>
>
> ” I have met with the Brillouin people. As far as I know, they think Rossi
> is criminal fraud.”
>
>
>
> Is as far as you know  based on actual statements regarding the fraud
> status of
>
> Rossi?
>

I don't think we discussed the details. They just dismissed him as a fraud.
Most cold fusion researchers do.

It isn't news, after all. It isn't debatable. Anyone who reads the Penon
report will see he is a fraud, just as anyone who reads the Gamberale
report will see that Defkalion was a gang of thieves.

It is astounding to me that anyone with technical knowledge still defends
him. It shows how damaging wishful thinking can be.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jed—

You said,

” I have met with the Brillouin people. As far as I know, they think Rossi is 
criminal fraud.”

Is as far as you know  based on actual statements regarding the fraud status of
Rossi?

Bob Cook

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Che]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

But ... the big issue is this: can an ill-conceived contract be interpreted
> by a jury to overlook the actual results (to imply that only the ERV's
> conclusion matters, not the substance of the report) ?
>
>
The World runs the way it does, precisely _because_ 'the letter of the law'
(here, contract law) trumps ALL other considerations. Even life & death.

(The only real caveat to this 'iron law' being: who wields _more_ power, on
which side of any contract..?)

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Che]

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
>
>> There aren't that many rules over here on Vortex but even still, some
>> of your more vociferous and full-of-shit members over there have been
>> banned from Vortex, like MaryYugo.
>>
>
> Frankly, I do not understand why people are bothered by Mary Yugo. She
> seems harmless to me. More polite than many skeptics. She reminds me of
> Groucho Marx singing "Whatever it is, I'm against it."
>
> Some people claim she is a he. Surely that doesn't count for anything in
> the 21st century. It is almost commonplace. I don't think much of internet
> anonymity or people giving themselves fake names, but if they are going do
> that, I don't care if they reverse genders or name themselves after comic
> book characters or chemical elements or what-have-you.
>
> - Jed
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
>


Wasn't she accused of representing certain corporate interests, at one
point?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Che]

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Comments get moved to another thread without notification.
> Commenters can get put "on probation" without notification.   You
> yourself are a moderator but it doesn't say that on your title.   You
> allow insults from some people but not others in a one-sided fashion,
> again without notification.   So those of us who would like to go over
> there will have to jump through your unpublished moderation guidelines
> in order to avoid "probation".
>
> There aren't that many rules over here on Vortex but even still, some
> of your more vociferous and full-of-shit members over there have been
> banned from Vortex, like MaryYugo.
>

MaryYugo..? I'm shocked, SHOCKED to read that she has ruffled feathers.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jed Rothwell]

bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:


> If you listen to Brillouin, the Rossi technology works like a charm.
>

When and where did they say that!?? I have met with the Brillouin people.
As far as I know, they think Rossi is criminal fraud.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

I agree with you that the crux of the trial is about fulfilling a contract, not 
about validity of technical data taking, recording and interpretation.  Darden, 
Vaughan etal. all agreed with the year long testing and the ERV.  The technical 
issues do not matter and could only get in the way of raising venture 
capital—Darden’s apparent objective.  The test and the ERV worked nicely to 
bring in $150M.  That’s what he is using to engage the old-timers in the LENR 
community.

If you listen to Brillouin, the Rossi technology works like a charm. And even 
if Darden has to pay $89M, he still has $60M to play with to gain control of IP 
and LENR in the United States.  This tactic is intended to assure his backers 
of established alternate and fossil fuel energy can ride out the “disruptive” 
political and financial situation that LENR poses and the Establishment rightly 
fears.

Darden’s biggest mistake IMHO was trying to screw Rossi and prevent his 
continued R and commercialization of his inventions by holding back on the 
$89M of VC raised.

Bob Cook




.


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden


Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:

This should be an epic trial, but it appears that people are expecting that it 
will end with the general public knowing whether the Rossi technology works or 
not.

Anyone can see it does not work. The Penon report is proof of that.


Whoa. The ERV report is not really self-evident proof of anything to a jury - 
other than that it supposedly provides a basis for Penon's conclusion. These 
are average citizens who don't do data, so to speak.

A top scientist could believe what you state, and I suspect that 95 out of 100 
scientists might agree with you. But there are no scientists on the jury and 
this trial is not about science at its core. It is about a contract which may 
be one-sided, and it may not matter what is actually in the report, as far as 
the actual data - only its conclusion.

If the mystery man Penon were to state under oath that this report validated 
the terms of the contract in favor of Rossi, it is possible that the judge 
could rule that it does not matter what is actually in the report and it does 
not matter that the report is even faked, or that most other experts say it 
does not support the Penon conclusion (of a successful demonstration).

In short, it was a huge mistake for Darden to sign such an agreement, since it 
does not include the usual safeguards but perhaps TD did not interpret it that 
way when it was signed, or did not read it carefully, or had bad legal advice. 
But ... the big issue is this: can an ill-conceived contract be interpreted by 
a jury to overlook the actual results (to imply that only the ERV's conclusion 
matters, not the substance of the report) ?

I think it could be interpreted that way, even if goes against science. That 
may be the crux of this trial.

However, from Rossi's perspective, Penon will probably not be there to make 
this assertion. This adds another wrinkle. Penon is even mysteriously absent 
from Rossi's witness list. It will be much harder to maintain an anti-science 
stance if Penon fails to show and stand up as the ERV but apparently that will 
be what Rossi will attempt to do in some way.

Another possibility could be that Rossi's lawyer is laying a trap here and will 
spring the Penon positive conclusion of the ERV report at the appropriate time 
such as to have a recorded deposition admitted without his presence. This would 
look suspicious, but stranger things have happened in trials like this. Despite 
Darden's legal team having a good name  their performance to date has not 
been stellar. They seem to following the tactic that they will win on appeal no 
matter what, so lay a proper basis for appeal. This tactic could backfire.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Adrian—

My thought’s parallel yours.

IMHO the IH corporate shield will NOT work to protect Darden and Vaughan, 
however.  They would suffer bankruptcy as well.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Adrian Ashfield<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Jones,
I had thought much the same thing.  If the ERV's report  is the deciding factor 
in the contract it will be difficult to put it aside.  Both sides paid/agreed 
on the man.

I also agree IH will appeal it for ever if they lose - and ultimately declare 
chapter 11 if they lose, rather than pay $89 million plus damages.
AA

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jones Beene]

Yes of course. An "obvious fraud" will not fly, but if artfully done - 
it could be a question that goes to the jury. This outcome of bad data 
passing off as good may be unlikely, but so was various facts that led 
to OJ, Rodney King, Casey Anthony and other jury surprises.


In short, juries can do unexpected things, especially if they like or 
dislike the parties. Even Abd has admitted that Rossi can apply charm, 
and he will certainly have the opportunity.


Curiously, it looks like there is an effort to smear Cherokee as a "fake 
environmental company". That has nothing to do with this contract but 
this trial may not hinge on facts, like so many others have seemed to go 
against "facts".


I guess this is where we bring in "alternative facts". As for the 
"obvious" part of the equation, the attempted fraud of the report may be 
so obvious that it explains why Penon is not available.



 Randy Wuller wrote:


Gentleman:

Any contract requires good faith.  If the report and test wasn’t 
created in good faith (with a reasonable attempt at complying with 
scientific standards), it won’t be sufficient.  Penon was identified 
as independent, if he wasn’t then the contract for Rossi will not be 
enforceable.


The idea Penon could just fraud up the report and Rossi wins is nonsense.

Ransom

*From:*Adrian Ashfield

Jones,
I had thought much the same thing.  If the ERV's report  is the 
deciding factor in the contract it will be difficult to put it aside.  
Both sides paid/agreed on the man.


I also agree IH will appeal it for ever if they lose - and ultimately 
declare chapter 11 if they lose, rather than pay $89 million plus damages.

AA

RE: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Randy Wuller]

Gentleman:

 

Any contract requires good faith.  If the report and test wasn’t created in 
good faith (with a reasonable attempt at complying with scientific standards), 
it won’t be sufficient.  Penon was identified as independent, if he wasn’t then 
the contract for Rossi will not be enforceable.

 

The idea Penon could just fraud up the report and Rossi wins is nonsense.

 

Ransom

 

From: Adrian Ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

 

Jones,
I had thought much the same thing.  If the ERV's report  is the deciding factor 
in the contract it will be difficult to put it aside.  Both sides paid/agreed 
on the man.

I also agree IH will appeal it for ever if they lose - and ultimately declare 
chapter 11 if they lose, rather than pay $89 million plus damages.
AA

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Adrian Ashfield]

Jones,
I had thought much the same thing.  If the ERV's report  is the deciding factor 
in the contract it will be difficult to put it aside.  Both sides paid/agreed 
on the man.

I also agree IH will appeal it for ever if they lose - and ultimately declare 
chapter 11 if they lose, rather than pay $89 million plus damages.
AA

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jones Beene]

Jed Rothwell wrote:


Jones Beenewrote:

This should be an epic trial, but it appears that people are
expecting that it will end with the general public knowing whether
the Rossi technology works or not.


Anyone can see it does not work. The Penon report is proof of that.



Whoa. The ERV report is not really self-evident proof of anything to a 
jury - other than that it supposedly provides a basis for Penon's 
conclusion. These are average citizens who don't do data, so to speak.


A top scientist could believe what you state, and I suspect that 95 out 
of 100 scientists might agree with you. But there are no scientists on 
the jury and this trial is not about science at its core. It is about a 
contract which may be one-sided, and it may not matter what is actually 
in the report, as far as the actual data - only its conclusion.


If the mystery man Penon were to state under oath that this report 
validated the terms of the contract in favor of Rossi, it is possible 
that the judge could rule that it does not matter what is actually in 
the report and it does not matter that the report is even faked, or that 
most other experts say it does not support the Penon conclusion (of a 
successful demonstration).


In short, it was a huge mistake for Darden to sign such an agreement, 
since it does not include the usual safeguards but perhaps TD did not 
interpret it that way when it was signed, or did not read it carefully, 
or had bad legal advice. But ... the big issue is this: can an 
ill-conceived contract be interpreted by a jury to overlook the actual 
results (to imply that only the ERV's conclusion matters, not the 
substance of the report) ?


I think it could be interpreted that way, even if goes against science. 
That may be the crux of this trial.


However, from Rossi's perspective, Penon will probably not be there to 
make this assertion. This adds another wrinkle. Penon is even 
mysteriously absent from Rossi's witness list. It will be much harder to 
maintain an anti-science stance if Penon fails to show and stand up as 
the ERV but apparently that will be what Rossi will attempt to do in 
some way.


Another possibility could be that Rossi's lawyer is laying a trap here 
and will spring the Penon positive conclusion of the ERV report at the 
appropriate time such as to have a recorded deposition admitted without 
his presence. This would look suspicious, but stranger things have 
happened in trials like this. Despite Darden's legal team having a good 
name  their performance to date has not been stellar. They seem to 
following the tactic that they will win on appeal no matter what, so lay 
a proper basis for appeal. This tactic could backfire.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> This should be an epic trial, but it appears that people are expecting
> that it will end with the general public knowing whether the Rossi
> technology works or not.
>

Anyone can see it does not work. The Penon report is proof of that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

What are the possibilities that LENR is moved forward?

Rossi wins because he supposedly fulfilled the contract, gaining interest
from the press.

Rossi loses and IH is free to pursue other LENR opportunities.

Split-the-baby decision, both sides limping away with Status Quo Ante
Bellum.


All the most likely and remaining possiblities seem like they will damage
the LENR effort.



On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> This should be an epic trial, but it appears that people are expecting
> that it will end with the general public knowing whether the Rossi
> technology works or not.
>
> That's not going to happen.  This is really not about science or a
> breakthrough in energy.
>
> This is a trial about a contract, having less to do with science than with
> small print. If you look at the extremes, there are two possibilities which
> could happen which illustrate the big-picture problem - and either would be
> a gross miscarriage of justice.
>
> 1) On one extreme, Rossi could win a large verdict even though the
> technology does not work, since arguably (under the wording) it is not
> genuinely required to work
> or
> 2) On the other extreme, Darden could win even though the jury believes
> that the technology works but they do not like Rossi and his fraudulent
> "customer" ruse.
>
> In the first scenario, the contract is drafted around the conclusions of
> an "ERV". It is not drafted around whether an independent PhD agrees, or
> even whether the so-called "expert" is honest or qualified. As the
> appointed expert responsible for validation, his say-so may not be truthful
> or valid to scientists, but it could fulfill the wording of the contract...
>
> ...and then to complicate matters, he may not show up.
>
> But the parties agreed upon this fiction in the contract - the ERV - and
> he apparently performed his agreed-upon duties, and issued his report which
> even if inaccurate or even fake, could meet the terms of the contract, and
> that could be enough.
>
> The second extreme could be as simple as a signature not being there or
> taxes not being paid or some other triviality (aka "small print") which is
> not related to whether or not the device worked in actuality but which was
> part of the "legalese".
>
> These are two extremes which cannot be ruled out. Both are unlikely but
> stranger things have happened.
>
> The biggest fear is that the device may have worked from time to time but
> not enough to be a commercial success, but this mixed performance was
> hidden away from view - in order to get a big payout. We will likely never
> know if it ever worked, but if it had worked for a few days instead of a
> year at anything close to a megawatt, it would be worth millions. If Rossi
> looses however, LENR may go down the tubes with him, even though it may
> have worked on occasion.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jones Beene]

This should be an epic trial, but it appears that people are expecting 
that it will end with the general public knowing whether the Rossi 
technology works or not.


That's not going to happen.  This is really not about science or a 
breakthrough in energy.


This is a trial about a contract, having less to do with science than 
with small print. If you look at the extremes, there are two 
possibilities which could happen which illustrate the big-picture 
problem - and either would be a gross miscarriage of justice.


1) On one extreme, Rossi could win a large verdict even though the 
technology does not work, since arguably (under the wording) it is not 
genuinely required to work

or
2) On the other extreme, Darden could win even though the jury believes 
that the technology works but they do not like Rossi and his fraudulent 
"customer" ruse.


In the first scenario, the contract is drafted around the conclusions of 
an "ERV". It is not drafted around whether an independent PhD agrees, or 
even whether the so-called "expert" is honest or qualified. As the 
appointed expert responsible for validation, his say-so may not be 
truthful or valid to scientists, but it could fulfill the wording of the 
contract...


...and then to complicate matters, he may not show up.

But the parties agreed upon this fiction in the contract - the ERV - and 
he apparently performed his agreed-upon duties, and issued his report 
which even if inaccurate or even fake, could meet the terms of the 
contract, and that could be enough.


The second extreme could be as simple as a signature not being there or 
taxes not being paid or some other triviality (aka "small print") which 
is not related to whether or not the device worked in actuality but 
which was part of the "legalese".


These are two extremes which cannot be ruled out. Both are unlikely but 
stranger things have happened.


The biggest fear is that the device may have worked from time to time 
but not enough to be a commercial success, but this mixed performance 
was hidden away from view - in order to get a big payout. We will likely 
never know if it ever worked, but if it had worked for a few days 
instead of a year at anything close to a megawatt, it would be worth 
millions. If Rossi looses however, LENR may go down the tubes with him, 
even though it may have worked on occasion.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:


> There aren't that many rules over here on Vortex but even still, some
> of your more vociferous and full-of-shit members over there have been
> banned from Vortex, like MaryYugo.
>

Frankly, I do not understand why people are bothered by Mary Yugo. She
seems harmless to me. More polite than many skeptics. She reminds me of
Groucho Marx singing "Whatever it is, I'm against it."

Some people claim she is a he. Surely that doesn't count for anything in
the 21st century. It is almost commonplace. I don't think much of internet
anonymity or people giving themselves fake names, but if they are going do
that, I don't care if they reverse genders or name themselves after comic
book characters or chemical elements or what-have-you.

- Jed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Comments get moved to another thread without notification.
Commenters can get put "on probation" without notification.   You
yourself are a moderator but it doesn't say that on your title.   You
allow insults from some people but not others in a one-sided fashion,
again without notification.   So those of us who would like to go over
there will have to jump through your unpublished moderation guidelines
in order to avoid "probation".

There aren't that many rules over here on Vortex but even still, some
of your more vociferous and full-of-shit members over there have been
banned from Vortex, like MaryYugo.

On 6/27/17, Eric Walker  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> They are following it on LENR-Forum but the moderation there is so
>> blatantly one-sided and biased that the actual narrative posted isn't
>> what
>> went on.
>>
>> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?pageNo=3
>>
>
> I will be happy to do my best to respond to questions that people might
> have about moderation over at LENR Forum.  We're doing our best, and
> sometimes people have other ideas about how we should be doing things.
> That's natural.  But I don't think our approach has resulted in a skewing
> of the narrative relating to the Rossi v. Darden story, except to filter
> out people who are only seeking to pick a fight.  Even those people's views
> have not been suppressed, merely moved to a separate thread where they will
> not derail the main thread.
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Che]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Eric Walker wrote:
>
> I don't think our approach has resulted in a skewing of the narrative
> relating to the Rossi v. Darden story, except to filter out people who are
> only seeking to pick a fight.  Even those people's views have not been
> suppressed, merely moved to a separate thread where they will not derail
> the main thread.
>
> From what I've seen Eric, you have done a good job in a polarized
> environment which seems to be every bit as toxic as the political arena has
> become these days.
>
> The ironic thing is that most of us came to this little corner of
> Cyberspace because we wanted Rossi (or anyone else it ) to pull it off - to
> have broken through the technological barrier.  That barrier would consist
> of low power and unreliably.
>
> Taking a QM effect of hydrogen and scaling it up a thousandfold to
> kilowatts 24/7 is what the planet needs. We desperately wanted it to be
> done this time - and were seduced to think it had been. Now it looks like
> another big disappointment awaits in Miami. There will be no winners.
>


I am so utterly disappointed as well,  as are so many of you.
Still -- taking the 'long view' is the thing.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jones Beene]

Eric Walker wrote:
I don't think our approach has resulted in a skewing of the narrative 
relating to the Rossi v. Darden story, except to filter out people who 
are only seeking to pick a fight.  Even those people's views have not 
been suppressed, merely moved to a separate thread where they will not 
derail the main thread.


From what I've seen Eric, you have done a good job in a polarized 
environment which seems to be every bit as toxic as the political arena 
has become these days.


The ironic thing is that most of us came to this little corner of 
Cyberspace because we wanted Rossi (or anyone else it ) to pull it off - 
to have broken through the technological barrier.  That barrier would 
consist of low power and unreliably.


Taking a QM effect of hydrogen and scaling it up a thousandfold to 
kilowatts 24/7 is what the planet needs. We desperately wanted it to be 
done this time - and were seduced to think it had been. Now it looks 
like another big disappointment awaits in Miami. There will be no winners.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

They are following it on LENR-Forum but the moderation there is so
> blatantly one-sided and biased that the actual narrative posted isn't what
> went on.
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?pageNo=3
>

I will be happy to do my best to respond to questions that people might
have about moderation over at LENR Forum.  We're doing our best, and
sometimes people have other ideas about how we should be doing things.
That's natural.  But I don't think our approach has resulted in a skewing
of the narrative relating to the Rossi v. Darden story, except to filter
out people who are only seeking to pick a fight.  Even those people's views
have not been suppressed, merely moved to a separate thread where they will
not derail the main thread.

Regards,
Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

They are following it on LENR-Forum but the moderation there is so
blatantly one-sided and biased that the actual narrative posted isn't what
went on.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?pageNo=3




Online
kevmol...@gmail.com

Student

   - Sunday, 10:21 pm
   



   -




 I will keep it in mind for future reference that the moderation on this
forum openly adheres to the "some farm animals are more equal than others"
outlook when recommending places to discuss LENR.



Eric Walker 
Verified User

   - Sunday, 10:09 pm
   



   -




kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:


Some farm animals are more equal than others.


Most assuredly so. This is something that has actually been discussed here
in the past. If you are smarting because something seems unfair, I suggest
you set aside your frustration. You are a guest here, plain and simple.

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> He should put up a PayPal link for donations... or is there on in place?
>
>
> I do not know. Ask him.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

He should put up a PayPal link for donations... or is there on in place?


I do not know. Ask him.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jones Beene]

He should put up a PayPal link for donations... or is there on in place?


 Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd posted this message on his blog:

"I am in Miami, getting my sea legs after a 40-hour bus ride that 
arrived at 4 AM Sunday. I had raised enough for a two-week stay. I 
have a fantastic room 4 blocks from the courthouse. Donations are 
still coming in, so I may be able to afford to stay the duration of 
the trial; I have not made the decision yet."

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd posted this message on his blog:

"I am in Miami, getting my sea legs after a 40-hour bus ride that arrived
at 4 AM Sunday. I had raised enough for a two-week stay. I have a fantastic
room 4 blocks from the courthouse. Donations are still coming in, so I may
be able to afford to stay the duration of the trial; I have not made the
decision yet."

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jed Rothwell]

I believe Abd went to Florida to cover the trial. He might be on his way
now, because the trial was delayed until Wednesday, as noted.

I think he said he is asking the court for press credentials so that he can
use his cell phone in the courthouse, so I guess he will be updating his
web site in real time.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Jones Beene]

Actually some new material has been added and it appears that Jury 
selection will not start until Wednesday.



Jones Beene wrote:

Anyone know of a website which is following this trial ?

Abd was rumored to be sitting in on the proceedings - but his site 
seems to have nothing new...


http://coldfusioncommunity.net/author/abd/