Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: What concept is that, exactly? That someone can continue to make huge > claims, present no or insufficient evidence for an entire year and then > expect some sort of credibility or respect? >
Some people respect them and give them credibility. Others do not. You do not, obviously, but not everyone agrees with you. I know some smart people who find them completely credible, such as the people who visited Defkalion I spoke with last month. Is that your thesis? Rossi and Defkalion would owe nothing to anybody if > they had kept their mouths shut, except to their investors, about their > claims. Once someone makes claims which have huge public impact, you bet > they owe something. They owe proof. > No, they do not owe proof. Businesses often make unsubstantiated claims without showing any proof. Sometimes they never introduce a product. That is not illegal, or unethical, or even unusual. At worst it is wishful thinking. Or bad management, I suppose. It is unimportant. It affects only stockholders and employees. Sometimes companies do this to stymie competition, as I pointed out before. This strategy does not work well, in my experience. - Jed
