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 <https://www.lenr-forum.com/user/452-jedrothwell/> Verified User Likes Received <https://www.lenr-forum.com/user/452-jedrothwell/#likes>3,558 Posts <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/user-post-list/452-jedrothwell/> 2,897 - 12 hours ago <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=64016#post64016> - New - - #9,772 <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=64016#post64016> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/user/589-adrian-ashfield/> Adrian Ashfield wrote: <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=64005#post64005> 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.
