Mary wrote: "Someone who doubts a convicted felon who makes extravagant claims and then won't provide definitive proof that is extremely easy, safe and cheap to come by?"
Oh brother. not that again. As usual, the material regarding Rossi's questionable history has been rehashed numerous times on this forum, as well as the second part of that statement... SNR decreasing. Further comments to the discussion between Mary and myself: >The reference to the lack of application within the Greek administration is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg51035.html <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg51035.html> >If the Greek government bureaucracy is anything like the US, The Greek govt is in utter turmoil, much worse than the U.S., plus it is highly socialistic, which I would argue greatly exacerbates the corruption. So like I said, using that as evidence is like walking out on a very flimsy limb. And even MORE to my point, I can provide rational opposing points when discussing such circumstantial or ad-hoc 'evidence' so those kinds of discussions are USELESS, and just end up in bickering. >inquiries from members of Parliament get the highest priority because Parliament controls much of the funding >for the agencies. And if one of those govt officials thinks that the technology is a threat to their power, or even more importantly, of strategic importance to the country, they can put a kibosh on any further mentioning of it via official channels. >Defkalion was also asked repeatedly in their forum to give the name of the agency, a contact person within > an agency who can confirm that an application was filed, a copy of the application, ANYTHING > demonstrating that they filed as they claimed. They have not produced one iota of evidence. If you honestly think that is proof, then I think you're way off. It proves nothing! They are a company, and they do not have to provide ANY information that they are not legally obligated to provide, and answering questions on a company forum are NOT LEGALLY required. That I can GUARANTEE. It might look suspicious, it probably pisses you off, but it is not proof! >Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence when a proper search has been made and > evidence should have been uncovered if it existed. As explained above, there are as many reasonable explanations for and against, why that search, at the time it was done, didn't bear fruit. That is not evidence of absence. > Where did that phrase you apparently quoted out of context come from anyway?" What phase are you referring to? -mark
