You're probably right.   But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for
some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by
both sides to administer the test.

On 7/10/17, H LV <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the device
> in Florida worked as he claimed. If the trial proceeded I think it is very
> likely that the preponderance of the evidence would not support his claim.
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> OJ Simpson...
>>> > Obviously he was guilty.
>>> ***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud.   You just agreed with
>>> the legal standard.
>>>
>>
>> I cannot judge legal standards. By scientific standards and by common
>> sense standards he is guilty of fraud.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes.
>>> ***Bullshit.  Plenty of others have read the report and came to
>>> different conclusions than you did.
>>>
>>
>> Not as far as I know. Some people such as Axil refuse to read the report.
>> Others people claim they read it and reached different conclusions, but
>> they have not given any reasons. A few are so gullible they believe the
>> post hoc lies about invisible heat exchangers that do not show in
>> photographs. Such "conclusions" are so irrational they have no place in a
>> serious discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>>>  At least his next intended victims
>>> > have the court docket to warn them off.
>>> ***Well if you were to write a point by point delineation of all the
>>> scientific claims that are fraud then his next "intended victims"
>>> would have that.
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea what his next scheme will be. Perhaps it will be the
>> QuarkX? Rossi told Lewan in the interview that he is setting up in Sweden
>> where people want to invest. I suppose that means he has begun a new
>> scam,
>> but maybe he made that up and there are no investors.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to