Ok, replace "evidence" with "reasonable indication", but I believe the original 
point remains. 


On Nov 27, 2011, at 16:16, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Charles Hope <lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> That's fine, but then Rossi and his believers need to quit complaining or 
> expressing alarm when folks see this misdirection and reasonably interpret it 
> as evidence of a scam.
> 
> Misdirection is routinely practiced by most businesses. IBM was famous for it 
> back in the 1970s. For example, they would announce an "initiative" which 
> they never intended to follow through on, in order to stop a competitor. This 
> is mean spirited, and perhaps unfair, but it is not unethical, and it 
> certainly not a scam. Unless you hold that most corporations are engaged in 
> scams.
> 
> I do not think this is "evidence." This is your opinion, or your gut feeling 
> of distrust. I do not trust Rossi myself (not to do business with him), but I 
> would never glorify this feeling of mine by calling it "evidence" of 
> anything. It is intuition. I think "evidence" should mean "a body of facts or 
> information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." 
> That is, objectively verifiable facts in the real world, such as reports that 
> someone has been scammed (or claims to be), or that Rossi has investors who 
> have not performed independent tests of his equipment. Not your feeling that 
> he might have such investors -- or by gosh wouldn't it be just him to have 
> such investors -- but actual names of investors and a credible report about 
> them.
> 
> Feelings should not be ignored. Intuition is often valuable when making a 
> business decision. But intuition and facts are two very different things.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Reply via email to