1. I think the judgment is based on one issue and that person has many sides that could be better. 2. No you do not have to judge. 3. Nobody said that your judgment has any quality. 4. Very few people are idiots - I do not believe one of those few got that kind of job.
Good we agree as far as we know Rossi is a great inventor and entrepreneur who is difficult to deal with if you take him the wrong way. (Goes for many - me included.:) My point is that what is done so foar is just initial positioning. To listen to the positioning and make judgment is not very smart, Down the line we will see what is fowl and what is fish. What you say about Rossi and IH is what you know. I am fine with that. Your conclusion might be right, not because you have any information worth water, but because it is a multiple choice question (Only two possible answer as you phrase it. I think there might be many more - so I do not judge.) 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 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > > >> 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. >> > > What other basis is there to call someone an idiot, other than his work? > How else can you judge? > > > >> 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. >> > > When have I called Rossi a fraud? I have said he is suspicious, with a > dodgy background, time in prison and so on. It is no wonder people think he > is a fraud. But I am not a policeman, I have not investigated him, and I do > not know whether he is a fraud or not. > > > >> No, repeating myself, there are no clear 'evidence' about the status quo. >> > > In that case, why is 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. >> > > I have not read the lawsuit stuff carefully. It gives me a headache. I > have not commented on it. > > The only thing I have said is that Rossi claims 50 times output, and I.H. > says they could not substantiate the claims. One of them has to be right, > and the other wrong. Based on what I know of their skills, I expect I.H. is > right. > > - Jed > >
