I don't understand the New Energy Times agenda. 
Very strange that they use Krivit and his continued description of Rossi as a 
promoter. Now they say it's a good thing nobody has given Rossi much money-- 
because heaven forbid this technology could have gotten to the public sooner. 

As I am primarily interested in hydrogen nickel reactions, their spin on it is 
just insulting. I unsubscribed from their newsletter as a mild protest. 

Brad



On Oct 30, 2011, at 7:17 AM, [email protected] wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: New Energy Times <[email protected]>
> To: FZNIDARSIC <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sat, Oct 29, 2011 11:18 pm
> Subject: Energy Catalzyer: Extraordinary Scams Require Extraordinary Claims
> 
>  
> 
>  
> October 29, 2011
> Noble Aspirations Are Not Enough
> 
> 
> Rossi’s case is certainly extraordinary, and his claim is so bold that many 
> people cannot imagine that he would pull off a scam this big for so long. Or 
> that he would pull the wool over so many people’s eyes. But he has. A blog 
> commenter using the name “Penny Gruber” nailed it:
> 
> “Rossi is a convicted [criminal guilty of] serial fraud. His discovery is 
> that, with enough chutzpah, one can convince a number of people that an 
> electric tea kettle is a new kind of nuclear reactor.”
> 
> Fortunately, nobody appears to have given Rossi much money. But Rossi has 
> abused the honest and sincere fans who have given him their moral support and 
> encouragement. There is nothing wrong with wanting a new source of clean 
> nuclear energy or wanting liberation from the petrocacy. I hope Rossi’s fans 
> will remember their own dreams and desires for a better world and continue 
> their enthusiasm for legitimate low-energy nuclear reaction research and 
> technology.
> 
>  
> CLICK HERE for the rest of the story.
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> This message was sent to [email protected] from:
> New Energy Times | 369-B 3rd St. #556 | San Rafael, CA 94901
> Email Marketing by 
> Unsubscribe  |  Forward To a Friend                                           
>                         

Reply via email to