Jed, It is quite another for you to repeatedly assert that Rossi must
have a legitimate reason to block the door
AA. We have been though this at least three times. Why?
I said that IH had signed an agreement not to enter the customer's
premises for IP reasons. Also that it was not necessary to see how the
heat was dissipated in order to measure the plant output. How many
times does this have to be repeated?
On 6/4/2016 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
We will see soon enough. I'm hoping that the QuarkX test will
give positive results. If that happens it will alter the game.
I kind of doubt these tests are underway, or that the QuarkX exists.
But I wouldn't know.
I gather that you are on Jed's side that the E-Cat doesn't work.
I don't consider that proven.
Not proven. Okay. Do you have any reason to doubt it?
Would you care to explain why Rossi did not allow anyone into the
pretend company, which has conducted no business in the state of
Florida, and has no employees?
It is one thing for you to express doubts, or to reserve judgement. It
is quite another for you to repeatedly assert that Rossi must have a
legitimate reason to block the door, or that he must be right and I.H.
is wrong. Since you have no dog in this fight I suggest you stop
taking sides.
- Jed
