He never took part after this incident.
2014-05-16 19:14 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha <[email protected]>: > There is nothing abnormal here. Before signing a contract, they'd better > certify that what DGT had was legit. Or just don't sign. You said even a > plumber could do that. So, before signing they were naive and just got > slightly below the level of expertise of a plubler after the signing and > just a bit above after the demo. This doesn't make sense. > > And you know this is absurd, because in the last paragraph you wrote "The > "gentleman's agreement" was batty. That was a very stupid thing to agree > too. If I had been there during the negotiations I would have raised hell > as soon as DGT said that. I would not have agreed to any such thing, ever. > In fact, if I had been Gamberale in Vancouver I would have demanded they do > a proper verification or I would have called off the whole project. I have > been fleeced enough times in business deals to know that you never trust > anyone. You verify. That's called due diligence. If Gamberale did not > confirm the flow rate in Vancouver, he did not perform due diligence." > > Look, Gamberale is not naive. Or if he was, he should know better, since this > probably wouldn't be his first time with him dealing with dishonesty. For > example, when he dealt with Blacklight. He pulled out of before the final > version of the paper before was sent to the journal (which was rejected). > Even though, Blacklight kept citing his name in further papers and in the > patent, even citing the name of the journal, as it were indeed accepted. > One could suppose that he could had joined after the first version of the > paper, but the thing it is he never took part in a paper from Blacklight. > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > [email protected] > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
