On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:34 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
25 days before the lawsuit and only about a couple of weeks from the end of > the test, presumably Rossi did not know IH were not going to pay up. When > did the EVR finish his report? > According to the complaint, the Guaranteed Performance Test ended on February 15, and the ERV published his final report on March 29. Presumably IH's expert would have visited the plant during the testing, so on or before February 15. If this is true, the comment was made on JONP at least 25 days after the IH expert visited, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and was told by the ERV that this detail had no importance. If we are to believe Rossi's comment on March 11, he must not have seen that there were problems at this point. How long does it take to prepare a lawsuit? I suppose this could be done in 25 days, from March 11 to April 5, in a pinch. Is your suggestion that the lawsuit was commenced after March 11? Rossi's 18 volumes of evidence are his notebooks. He would keep these as a > record anyway. Nothing strange about that. > Yes, this is a reasonable interpretation of the 18 volumes. > You keep on about the anonymous IH "expert" not being allowed access to > the customer. We have been through this countless times. It is not > necessary to know how the heat was used when measuring the output of a > black box. Jed even admits that. Sounds like you are applying your first > law again. > Ok, your view is that it doesn't matter whether the IH expert had access to the customer area. Your opinion is noted. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. Eric [1] http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.0.pdf
