AA. The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit
the customer's plant.
ed. Who told you that? That is not what I have heard.
That is all I have read about. If you have proof of other things,
please show it. In fact I also read in a comment that it was not Rossi
but the ERV who stopped the IH person. I have seen no proof of this
either, only what you have reported from your IH source. Not so very
long ago IH/Cherokee put out a statement that nothing should be believed
unless it was in an official IH statement.
On 6/5/2016 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit
the customer's plant.
Who told you that? That is not what I have heard.
Stopping the visit would be bad enough, in any case.
Show me the actual quotation where IH said it was unacceptable AT
THE BEGINNING.
I have no idea what happened at THE BEGINNING. They said it was
unacceptable several months later. Why does it matter? Is there a
statute of limitations? Do you have have to find problems at THE
BEGINNING or never? That makes no sense.
You may know what the instrumentation was but you have not shared
that info and I don't know what it was.
So you will have to wait. So stop jumping to conclusions. Stop taking
sides. Stop making up stuff, such as: "The only thing Rossi stopped
the IH employee from doing was visit the customer's plant."
If you know it, why not list it?
Obviously because I agreed not to. Duh.
If you want information, you should ask Rossi for the ERV report.
- Jed
