Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Does your concept of reading the depositions apply to someone who claims > to be a lawyer? > I do not understand this question. I referred to the depositions by Smith, which are technical: EXPERT REPORT OF RICK A. SMITH, P.E., Document 235-1

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

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.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

this off. It is very un-professional. > > Frank Znidarsic > > > -Original Message- > From: Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 6:56 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden > > Hah hah,

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Will you all please knock this off. It is very un-professional. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 6:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden Hah hah, Eric is such

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Hah hah, Eric is such a wuss. He allows insults from one side but not from the other side. Vorts are basically unwelcomed over there. It's the new hangout for the anti-Rossi anti-LENR crowd since Ecatnews shut down. ultrasure

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Here is Eric Walker's latest move of one of my responses over to his garbage thread, without explanation, without notice, and without moving the precipitating post which apparently uses the same offensive term of 'bullshit'. Online

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

​Ok then. At what point are you "disengaging"? If you "clarify" after you "disengage" you haven't really "disengaged", have you? At what point do you start moderating according to your own posted standards? ​ On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Eric, you said you would not post any more. The issue isn't that Mary Yugo insults people. The issue is that you ALLOW those insults from one side but not another. You like to read intent in what I do but you aren't reading intent into what THEY do. And I'm not even saying to exclude Mary.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have > something else to say. You aren't even a man of your word. > Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter with you.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Geez, Eric, it's like pulling teeth. You don't see where the source of the problem is. The source is when someone STARTS insults and gets away with it. You let some people on your forum insult away. Now you want to attract Vorts who are going to have to go through the same kind of bullshit

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

>>We would ideally not attract pugnacious participants Galileo was pugnacious On Monday, 3 July 2017, 16:11, Eric Walker wrote: Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You have a perception of someone who claims to

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content > but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only > one side of the insults. > Crass language and attacks

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed > at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case. You have a > one-sided perception. HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Good post from EcatWorld, pulling some items from behind a paywall: Engineer48 • 20 hours ago [hush]​[hide comment] Some details of the initial shots fired by IH &

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Eric: I notice that you didn't bother to address my example. Twice, now. Readers will be the judge of your moderating capabilities. You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only one side of

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Eric: Of COURSE you're happy with your own moderating because you are so one-sided at the approach. You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case. You have a one-sided perception. HE WAS THE ONE WHO

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Hi Kevin, Eric, you're completely full of shit. > > The example I posted wasn't even an insult and it was moved to some other > thread. Here are some of your posts that were moved; readers will be the judge of how much value you added to the conversation in posting them, and how much they

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Eric, you're completely full of shit. The example I posted wasn't even an insult and it was moved to some other thread. And NO, you are NOT giving notice that certain posts have been moved to another thread. NOT EVEN ONE of my posts had that notification. You're so concerned about spam that

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sat, Jul 1, 2017 10:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden Looks like things are finally underway in Miami, barring a hurricane. July is bit early for one, but there are already strong signs of a tropical depression, so to speak. Interesting threa

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Jones Beene wrote: He should put up a PayPal link for donations... or is there on in place? Ah ha. https://www.gofundme.com/cold-fusion-journalism

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Looks like things are finally underway in Miami, barring a hurricane. July is bit early for one, but there are already strong signs of a tropical depression, so to speak. Interesting thread has turned up on LENR forum - which has been joined by a hand's-on expert, in fact he claims to be a

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Ice Pick.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote: I personally believe that Rossi has at least ideas about how to make LENR > work, possibly he has a solution. Let him reveal that. He has promised > after the trial to show us. Rossi looks not as a fraudster to me. He

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > It seems that Rossi has spent his adult life cultivating such people and > then stealing from them. Unfortunately, in the course of doing this, he may > have destroyed the last hope of funding for cold fusion.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Comments get moved to another thread without notification. > When people such as yourself flood the forum with throwaway comments, we moderators would spam the place to give as many notifications. Had you known how

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Well said. AA -Original Message- From: Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Jun 30, 2017 2:33 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden Jed, I am not going in to a long discussion with you but I think your 'besser wiss

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

the report is not so convincing, except it have no value, a joke for the most kind. what is convincing, like for Lugano and DGT Milano, is that absence of any serious and credible answer. For me at this stage, it is definitive. if Rossi have something, he sure have lied and manipulated his

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Jed, I am not going in to a long discussion with you but I think your 'besser wisser' attitude needs a comment. You are saying the ERV report is proof of fraud. Well, that is using a very low level to qualify a proof. The truth is that you with some support of IH has made that conclusion and so

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Jones Beene wrote: > > Whoa. The ERV report is not really self-evident proof of anything to a > jury - other than that it supposedly provides a basis for Penon's > conclusion. These are average citizens who don't do data, so to speak. > I hope you are wrong about that, but

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote: > You said, > > > > ” I have met with the Brillouin people. As far as I know, they think Rossi > is criminal fraud.” > > > > Is as far as you know based on actual statements regarding the fraud > status of > > Rossi? > I don't think we

RE: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Jed— You said, ” I have met with the Brillouin people. As far as I know, they think Rossi is criminal fraud.” Is as far as you know based on actual statements regarding the fraud status of Rossi? Bob Cook

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But ... the big issue is this: can an ill-conceived contract be interpreted > by a jury to overlook the actual results (to imply that only the ERV's > conclusion matters, not the substance of the report) ? > > The World

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > >> There aren't that many rules over here on Vortex but even still, some >> of your more vociferous and full-of-shit members over there have been >> banned from Vortex,

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Comments get moved to another thread without notification. > Commenters can get put "on probation" without notification. You > yourself are a moderator but it doesn't say that on your title. You > allow insults

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote: > If you listen to Brillouin, the Rossi technology works like a charm. > When and where did they say that!?? I have met with the Brillouin people. As far as I know, they think Rossi is criminal fraud. - Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

ilto:jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:10 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: This should be an epic trial, but it appears that people are expecting that it will end with the gene

RE: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

o:a.ashfi...@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:45 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden Jones, I had thought much the same thing. If the ERV's report is the deciding factor in the contract it will be difficult to put it aside. Both

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Yes of course. An "obvious fraud" will not fly, but if artfully done - it could be a question that goes to the jury. This outcome of bad data passing off as good may be unlikely, but so was various facts that led to OJ, Rodney King, Casey Anthony and other jury surprises. In short, juries can

RE: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

will not be enforceable. The idea Penon could just fraud up the report and Rossi wins is nonsense. Ransom From: Adrian Ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:45 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden Jones, I had thought much the same thing

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Jones, I had thought much the same thing. If the ERV's report is the deciding factor in the contract it will be difficult to put it aside. Both sides paid/agreed on the man. I also agree IH will appeal it for ever if they lose - and ultimately declare chapter 11 if they lose, rather than

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beenewrote: This should be an epic trial, but it appears that people are expecting that it will end with the general public knowing whether the Rossi technology works or not. Anyone can see it does not work. The Penon report is proof of that. Whoa.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Jones Beene wrote: > This should be an epic trial, but it appears that people are expecting > that it will end with the general public knowing whether the Rossi > technology works or not. > Anyone can see it does not work. The Penon report is proof of that. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

What are the possibilities that LENR is moved forward? Rossi wins because he supposedly fulfilled the contract, gaining interest from the press. Rossi loses and IH is free to pursue other LENR opportunities. Split-the-baby decision, both sides limping away with Status Quo Ante Bellum. All the

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

This should be an epic trial, but it appears that people are expecting that it will end with the general public knowing whether the Rossi technology works or not. That's not going to happen. This is really not about science or a breakthrough in energy. This is a trial about a contract,

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Kevin O'Malley wrote: > There aren't that many rules over here on Vortex but even still, some > of your more vociferous and full-of-shit members over there have been > banned from Vortex, like MaryYugo. > Frankly, I do not understand why people are bothered by Mary Yugo.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Comments get moved to another thread without notification. Commenters can get put "on probation" without notification. You yourself are a moderator but it doesn't say that on your title. You allow insults from some people but not others in a one-sided fashion, again without notification. So

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Eric Walker wrote: > > I don't think our approach has resulted in a skewing of the narrative > relating to the Rossi v. Darden story, except to filter out people who are > only seeking to pick a fight. Even those

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Eric Walker wrote: I don't think our approach has resulted in a skewing of the narrative relating to the Rossi v. Darden story, except to filter out people who are only seeking to pick a fight. Even those people's views have not been suppressed, merely moved to a separate thread where they

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: They are following it on LENR-Forum but the moderation there is so > blatantly one-sided and biased that the actual narrative posted isn't what > went on. > >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

They are following it on LENR-Forum but the moderation there is so blatantly one-sided and biased that the actual narrative posted isn't what went on. https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?pageNo=3 Online

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Jones Beene wrote: He should put up a PayPal link for donations... or is there on in place? I do not know. Ask him. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

He should put up a PayPal link for donations... or is there on in place? Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd posted this message on his blog: "I am in Miami, getting my sea legs after a 40-hour bus ride that arrived at 4 AM Sunday. I had raised enough for a two-week stay. I have a fantastic room 4

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Abd posted this message on his blog: "I am in Miami, getting my sea legs after a 40-hour bus ride that arrived at 4 AM Sunday. I had raised enough for a two-week stay. I have a fantastic room 4 blocks from the courthouse. Donations are still coming in, so I may be able to afford to stay the

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

I believe Abd went to Florida to cover the trial. He might be on his way now, because the trial was delayed until Wednesday, as noted. I think he said he is asking the court for press credentials so that he can use his cell phone in the courthouse, so I guess he will be updating his web site in

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Actually some new material has been added and it appears that Jury selection will not start until Wednesday. Jones Beene wrote: Anyone know of a website which is following this trial ? Abd was rumored to be sitting in on the proceedings - but his site seems to have nothing new...