How dos a legal case handle an issue whereby everybody believes that LENR is impossible and a pseudoscience square with the main contention that Rossi has not revealed how LENR can be made to work? The predicate of such a case seems crazy to me.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > > Jed - My point was that you have talked to some people. >> You do not know if they said things to make you 'just go away'. >> > > I can usually tell when that is the message. > > > >> There was no reason to fill you in with more than what sat on their >> tongue. >> > > How do you know that? > > > >> You are drawing conclusions and make them sound like facts based on very >> weak contacts. >> > > How do you know that? You are the one who is drawing conclusions (about > me) without any knowledge of who I spoke with or what I know. > > > >> In addition Mats might obtain the info in time for his decision to cancel >> the meeting. (I do not know his deadline). >> > > His deadline has passed several times. Because I am scheduled to speak > there, I have been in close communication with him about this. > > > >> There are timing issues and sitting on the outside with sparse info is >> not of any value as a factual argument. >> > > I am on the inside of the symposium planning. I am a speaker. Look at the > program. > > - Jed > >
