Stephen Cooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Especially when you can't discuss some things you know about the current > context and have to instead draw on older material to which you had > concerns about at the time but previously gave the benefit of the doubt. > Yes, that is the situation. > We should try to relax I think,trust the due process and allow everything > to be considered and let things run their course. All will become clearer > in time . . . > All would have been clear weeks ago, if it were not for this damn lawsuit. I think the people at I.H. wanted to explain their views to the public. I hope this is settled quickly without costing I.H. much money. The important thing is for them to continue funding research, and not to get sidetracked with an expensive lawsuit. It might be settled out of court, which I gather might mean the information will never be released to the public. (I know little about lawsuits, but that is what I have heard.) That would be a shame because researchers and the audience here would benefit from knowing the facts about this case. Everyone should hear I.H.'s side of the story. You may decide that Rossi is correct, but you should first hear both sides. As I said before, a great deal of money at stake and I.H. should do whatever their attorneys recommend. Satisfying our curiosity is of secondary importance. My curiosity too. There is much that I do not know. - Jed
