Comment on Steve High, You know I am one of "the folks up north" although in California since many years. Like many others you think that a government owned radio network is different than one owned by advertisement. Well, they both have their advantages. Unfortunately the freedom of speech in my experience is better in the government owned. Should not be government owned but rather fee based as Swedes pay a fee for TV and Radio. I think that it is good that SR takes up the issue. I agree with you about that they will have to eat crow down the line. I have very few problems with Rossi. However, his appearance has not been the very best and that is particularly true as the progress is slow. The good thing is that this negative publicity gave the other side an opportunity to rebut. I think they did so very well and promising. To Jed about Google translate: maybe I should use it the other way as it is much easier language:), then you guys would understand more than 50% of what I think!!
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Steve High <diamondweb...@gmail.com> wrote: > The folks up north are apparently a bit peeved over being slimed by > their local media: > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/03/swedish-e-cat-testers-issue-statement/ > > > I can imagine that it's a bit unpleasant to find your reputation being > trashed in this manner by your government-sponsored radio network. The > radio message was very simple: Rossi is a scam so anyone supporting him > is a fool. So they decided they didn't feel like waiting for their next > report to come out and made a bit of a pre-emptive jump at the next stage. > The wording in their final paragraph is interesting. "Such tests have now > been carried out and the results will be reported in a new scientific > article." > This is not a statement you would be at all likely to make if you > are about to publish a report that would undermine your previous report. > Especially if your reason for making the statement is to fight off > accusations that you were taken in by a scammer. So what effect does this > have on the "Rossi is Real" equation we've been hassling over? > > > Steve High >
