Jed, regardless of what you think and believe, it is not fair to call someone an idiot because he made a poor job at one time in 2012. It is not fair to call someone a fraud because he made jail time and is Italian or because you find it hard to negotiate with him.
No, repeating myself, there are no clear 'evidence' about the status quo. The different sides has spoken and left all pertinent and objective data out. That is typical for a lawsuit in the beginning. It means nothing. You indicate some relationship with IH that gives you access to better information. Maybe correct but it could also be their subjective position you are taken for valid. No, I have no idea if that is the case. Cease the name calling and realize you have no 'evidence'. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all > > Should have included this in the above text. > > https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg109304.html > > Source for what "Jed Said" > > My apologies. > > This head cold is slowing me down :) > > Kind Regards walker > > On 14 April 2016 at 17:42, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> Should have included this in the above text. >> >> Source for what "Jed Said" >> >> My apologies. >> >> Kind Regards walker >> >> On 14 April 2016 at 17:40, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> In reply to Jed >>> >>> "... as I said. I.H. says >>> >>> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the >>> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust >>> Penon's." >>> >>> 1) Who at I.H. said this? >>> 2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that you >>> accept their credentials? >>> 3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests? >>> 4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant? >>> 5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the plant >>> was not working? >>> 6) What are their qualifications? >>> 7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on? >>> 8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past? >>> >>> Just the beginning of questioning your assertions. >>> >>> Kind Regards walker >>> >>> >>> On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to >>>>> report something in the future state the source and quote what they say, >>>>> otherwise you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to >>>>> back-pedal the fantasy. >>>>> >>>> >>>> EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and >>>> legal filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again. >>>> >>>> LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in >>>> your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not >>>> understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the >>>> evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is >>>> right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts >>>> must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my >>>> sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is >>>> rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying. >>>> >>>> I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore >>>> what I say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things >>>> I did not do. Stick to the facts, please. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
