On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> We do not understand him, but the general the outlines are clear. He is an > inventor and businessman trying to make money. Not a scientist. He has no > interest in academic kudos. He does not give a damn what anyone else > thinks. He does what he thinks is best, and he often changes his mind. He > often says things which are so contradictory, ridiculous, and so obviously > untrue, I would not call them lies so much as stream-of-consciousness > blather, like someone in a waking dream. His English is often poor. If that > bothers you, I suggest you ignore him. > Andrea Rossi's statements don't bother me. I've been trying to make the point that they seem to be somewhat benign in the larger picture, and that any rate complaints about his contradicting himself or making misleading statements are no new revelation. I have no reason to believe that his lack of fluency in English explains all of the confusion, but I also have no reason at this point to think that he's being devious in some deep sense. I disagree with you entirely that the links in John Milstone's email were off the mark in giving reason to think that Rossi was making misleading statements, and I think others will agree with me here. But I also think that Rossi's intentions are mostly irrelevant, for the very good points that you have brought up elsewhere. You've said in a different post something to the effect that it is the science involved here that is what is really interesting, and I also agree with you on this point.
