Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does your concept of reading the depositions apply to someone who claims > to be a lawyer? > I do not understand this question. I referred to the depositions by Smith, which are technical: EXPERT REPORT OF RICK A. SMITH, P.E., Document 235-1 SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT OF RICK A. SMITH, P.E., Document 235-10 Available here: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0235.01_Exhibit_1.pdf http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0235.10_Exhibit_10.pdf My only comments relate to things like the Second Law as described by Smith. I agree with his analysis. > WoodWorker claimed to be a lawyer and in his intro made a big deal about > Penon not showing up to back up his report. But it turns out Penon's > deposition is admitted as evidence. > I have no knowledge of this. I have no idea whether it was admitted or not, or what the legal implications of admitting it would be. My only comment about the report is that it proves Rossi is a fraud. Anyway, it seems the trial is over, thank goodness. > So, if you hold an ordinary poster to such a high standard of reading > depositions, shouldn't you be holding someone who claims to be a > bloodsucking lawyer to an even higher standard? > I do not understand this comment, or which lawyer you consider a bloodsucker, or why you think so. > Vorts might not know this but the whole discussion matrix at LENR forum > (at least on the Rossi vs. IH thread) is heavily weighted towards > anti-Rossi. Very heavily. > I disagree. - Jed
