I think lying becomes fraud as soon as money is involved. Harry
----- Original Message ---- > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 1:52:28 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:steorn addendum video posted on youtube > > At 06:24 PM 1/20/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > >At present, I suspect the main reason I'm unwilling to believe it's a > >con job is that I can't comprehend what Steorn would expect to get > >from masterminding such an operation. I seem to be getting the > >impression that both Terry and Stephen are also having difficulty in > >trying to figure out what Steorn's motivations might be as well. > >What's the pay off. > > Money. From selling disclosure and from selling equipment to > investigate the phenomenon. > > >Running a deliberate con just doesn't make any sense to me. It also > >raises my hackles in the Occam's Razor department. If what they are > >doing is knowingly diversionary, a deliberate con job, isn't that > >eventual grounds for criminal action against them? > > No, not if they have been careful. Look, you pay to go see a famous > magician. He lies to you and diverts your attention, and you applaud. > Is that grounds for criminal action? Marketers lie about their > products all the time. Can you prosecute them for it? > > Depends, doesn't it? Puffery is not generally illegal. Fraud is. > Lying isn't fraud except under narrow circumstances. > > >I'm reminded of Deep Throat's advice: "Follow the money." And since we > >are trying to follow where the money might be coming from it seems to > >me that only the "true believers" who stand to be conned out of their > >money would be companies & corporations who end up purchasing licenses > >in the hopes of building their own energizer bunny. For the most part, > >the admiring and true-believing public are not in a position of being > >fleeced. > > Really? What's the disclosure price? It's within range for small > pockets. Some corporations might toss in what is to them pocket > change, just in case. All they have to do is keep it looking > interesting enough. > > >Call me naive, but I'm still under the impression that Steorn hopes > >that their "spinny thing" will eventually pan out. > > Sure. What does "pan out" mean. If it means they can walk with cash > in their pockets, legally, does that require that the thing actually > work. This is the true over-unity device they may have invented. How > to make money legally with a device that doesn't work except to get > some people really confused. > > > I'm more inclined > >to speculate that Stoern continues to envision becoming filthy rich > >from taking a tiny slice of all the profits from the licenses they > >hope to sell. > > I doubt it at this point. Maybe at one point, then as it dawned on > them that it wasn't going to, instead of wasting their momentum, they > figured out how to sell what they have really found. __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
