Russ George <[email protected]> wrote: In all of this demented nattering over Rossi and IH no one seems to have > suggested the obvious, that being that the two parties are in cahoots on > all this.
This lawsuit is costing I.H. a great deal of money and trouble, so I do not think they are in cahoots. > Using the old but perfect advice, 'follow the money', since IH has happily > used Rossi to take in scores of millions from investors it showcased > Rossi's year-long demo repeatedly . . . They were doing the opposite of showcasing it during the year-long test. They were complaining about it to many people, including me. If they complained to me and others, I think it is unlikely they were at the same time bragging about it or showcasing it to potential investors. I say this because: It was inevitable the investors would have learned they were complaining, either during the test, or after the fact. I did not discuss I.H.'s complaints, but I know for a fact that several other people did. I think it is inevitable that the investors would have learned that I.H. was unhappy. I also think it is 100% inevitable that the investors would have learned (or known all along) that the gadget was not working. Anyone who looked at the data, the configuration, and the ventilation in the room would reach that conclusion. So, if I.H. had misled the investors, the investors would have learned this, and they would have demanded their money back, or sued I.H. Perhaps they will demand their money back, but it has been several months since the lawsuit was filed, and they have not demanded it back yet as far as I know, so I suppose the investors are satisfied. For these reasons, I think we can rule out the possibility that I.H. used the Rossi test to solicit funding. - Jed
