Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: At the end of the test? That's cheating from IH. They should had required > that before the test. >
They required it at the beginning, the middle and the end, several times. They made several other requirements clear. He did not fulfill a single one of them. As they said in the press release, Rossi "repeatedly breached his agreements." Believe me, they made their views quite clear to Rossi. He only reported this one example, but this dispute has been underway from the start. That would not be "cheating" in any case. An expert should be given any information he asks for at any stage in the investigation. There is no justification for withholding access to the customer's 1 MW equipment. > This kind of requirement goes to an endless loop of questions which ends > in IH claiming something impossible to do. > For you to suggest that evaluating the customer's equipment is somehow unreasonable, or part of an endless loop, is preposterous. You are mesmerized by Rossi and his absurd claims. > It's easier to suppose IH did steal tech from Rossi. > There is nothing to steal. - Jed
