On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Actually IMO it is unethical. Lawful and ethical activity do not necessarily overlap. They have made no promises in the legal sense, but they have raised expectations and they should feel a duty to explain the delays. If they don't, then there is something wrong with their sense of ethics, or if you prefer "fair play". Harry > Sometimes companies do this to stymie competition, as I pointed out before. > This strategy does not work well, in my experience. > > - Jed >
