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 >