Jed, it doesn't matter how many times you make the same charges. IH
says one thing and Rossi another. Until there are actual facts to look
at. like the instrumentation used and the results, it is not possible to
know the truth.
You talk about "the expert" but I believe you are talking about an
anonymous IH employee not "the" expert, the ERV.
On 6/4/2016 11:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com <mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>> wrote:
We don't have more than a vague clue what was said and by whom,
sitting in the peanut gallery.
I.H. has not said much, but their statements have been clear.
For example, IH might have told the ERV that his proposal for
instrumentation wasn't satisfactory before the test started, and
that IH didn't accept the test.
They explained what happened. Rossi departed "from the purported test
plan."
Rossi also made it clear what happened in his interview with Lewan. He
blocked them from the customer site, and he & Penan refused to allow
the I.H. expert to do what the expert "insisted" on. You have Rossi's
own word for the fact that he was in charge, he set the rules, and he
refused to do things that I.H. demanded of him.
I do not know how he ended up with so much power, in control of the
situation, but that is what happened. That is what he said, and what
I.H. said.
I have the impression I.H. was bending over backwards, trying to make
him see the light and act reasonably. I think they gave him one
opportunity after another. That is only an impression, but based on
it, I thought he might fix the problems. I was hoping he would. I was
disappointed to learn on March 10 that the two sides still disagreed.
Close to the end, I still hoped things would turn out okay. That is
why I signed up for Lewan's symposium.
- Jed
