At 10:54 AM 8/26/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
James Bowery <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
My question has been deleted from PESN. No answer to the question is evident.
I assume you mean the question you posted here was what you asked on
PESN. They deleted it?!? That's terrible. That's irresponsible.
Not necessarily. The context was this statement from Sterling:
"no one there (except John, allegedly) has ever seen a working
engine yet" (as quoted by James). The full quotation is:
http://pesn.com/2012/08/21/9602163_Part_I--My_Concerns_About_Inteligentry/
Some of us want it to be true so bad that we have been extremely
generous to Inteligentry, despite so many red flags, foremost being
that no one there (except John, allegedly) has ever seen a working engine yet.
Where is "there?" Stirling is apparently referring to the staff at
Inteligentry. He also reported, previously, comment from
manufacturers. At least one said that they had not seen a working
engine. And the way he presented this *implied* no contrary report
from any of them.
It is unlikely that Stirling would make his comment if anyone at
Inteligentry had told him they had seen a working engine. But, hey,
people make mistakes. Sterling might say, "Now that you mention it,
Frank, the janitor, did say he saw an engine running, and it dripped
a lot of oil." But probably not.
Now, James' questions:
There were two:
Is it not the case that Dan Glover of PTP Licensing has repeatedly
and publicly made claims to the contrary?
If so, on what basis you do accuse Mr. Glover of interstate fraud?
When are you going to contact the FBI?
The first question is a legitimate question, though the second
question shows the intention, it's trolling. A serious raising of
this question would do a little footwork first, and would actually
quote Dan Glover. I.e., what did he actually say that is supposedly contrary?
James, however, has converted a *possible* -- not established --
contradiction into an accusation of fraud. Dan Glover is a sales
agent for licenses. He might say just about anything, legally, the
law recognizes puffery as not being illegal, and typically actual
license language will state that no representations that have been
made by anyone are being relied upon, that only what is actually in
the license agreement (or other specificed documents) is represented
as true. A criminal prosecution for fraud would require *very clear*
and intentional misrepresentation. If a salesman says "manufacturers
have seen working engines" -- based on what he was told by the
company that hired him, or even if he just made it up -- it could be
an error, but not at all fraud. Dan Glover, unless he establishes it,
has no *legal obligation* to establish the truth of what he says.
If you think that it is the job of the FBI to protect you or others
from making stupid investment decisions, you are likely to be
fleeced. They won't, and they don't.
If James actually posted the second question, I would not be
surprised that it would be deleted. It would add nothing to the value
of the page. Calling attention to possible mistatements by Dan Glover
is pointing out something that could be expected. A sales agent will
give the official company position. Dan may or may not have been
careful. He's young, seems sincere, and might be gullible as hell. I
hope he's not allowing delay in his wages or fees!
If it's wages, he'd be first in line in a bankruptcy. If it's fees,
he could kiss them good-bye. Any employees (which could include
John!) would be first in line.
James went on to state:
NOTE: I'm not interested in taking sides in this. I'm merely
interested in the truth and this seems to be an important element of it.
A non-existence accusation, accusing Glover of interstate fraud, and
some question about contacting the FBI is an "important element"?
No, the only substance here is a claim that Glover has made
contradictory statements, which, even if true, would not be newsworthy.
Can't you see the headlines?:
"SALESMAN MADE FALSE CLAIM"
Like, duh.
"USED CAR SALESMAN LIED ABOUT CAR'S CONDITION"
I guarantee you, that won't make the news unless something actually
newsworthy takes place, like a car dealer is sued and loses. The
salesman would not be prosecuted, almost certainly, unless something
got nailed down in writing and, say, made as a formal statement under
penalty of perjury. Even then ....
"RUG SALESMAN SAID RUG WORTH 10X ACTUAL"
"POPE CATHOLIC"
