Hi Bob, I'll propose another reason for the recent silence: disappointment at an extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile excercise to continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of Rossi's followers who haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the contents of the lawsuit docket. No need to postulate the eating of crow, except in those instances where someone made a prediction about the outcome of the lawsuit. Few people that I recall expressed much confidence in any particular outcome.
So we are left with two groups of people following developments, even more divided than before the lawsuit, with each somehow further confirmed in their impressions. Regards, Eric On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:22 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com < bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud > etc must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their > anti-Rossi claque. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > > > > > *From: *Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject: *[Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' > > > > > > This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now > (again), if it hasn't. > > > > > > Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority > <https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/07/18/heres-the-settlement-getting-the-license-back-was-rossis-top-priority/> > > > > > > The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply > could not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at > least the way IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the > case if it had gone to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would > have been liable for. > > > > Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he > valued the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to > 'fold' and walk away. > > > > > > Is that it, or close enuff..? > > > > > > > > >
