On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kevin, > At least you have to try to believe that people are not all malicious. > ***I'm not attributing malice. I'm attributing greed. > He certainly could say that he is disappointed and that he feels that they > have broken their promises. > ***And that would help out his case exactly how? They'd just delay the report even further. > He could say a lot other things instead of just throwing out a lie, which > he for sure would have to pay dearly for if you are right (which you are > not). > ***Perhaps you are not familiar with Rossi's credibility issues regarding his past posts on JONP. > There for sure are other motivational factors for people than greed. > ***Yes, there are. I just find it difficult to believe that these 7 PhD's are so incompetent. I mean, the vast majority of Vorts knew that there would probably have to be isotopic analysis on the 6 month test. But these geniuses are ONLY NOW getting around to thinking about doing it? That simply does not add up. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > [email protected] > +1 916 436 1899 > 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 > > “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Yeah, I read it. What else can Rossi say? You don't spit at the >> alligator until you're done crossing the river. >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Alan, >>> I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of >>> the reasons for the delay. >>> I hope Kevin reads it. >>> >>> Best Regards , >>> Lennart Thornros >>> >>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >>> [email protected] >>> +1 916 436 1899 >>> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 >>> >>> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >>> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> - Andrea Rossi >>>> June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM >>>> >>>> <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=8#comment-972594> >>>> >>>> Giuliano Bettini: >>>> I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of >>>> it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication >>>> usually takes 6 months as an average. >>>> The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as >>>> you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all >>>> the >>>> time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond >>>> any >>>> reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics >>>> made >>>> during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of >>>> patience, it >>>> is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing >>>> must >>>> take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive >>>> analysis >>>> of the results, positive or negative as they might be. >>>> Warm Regards, >>>> A.R. >>>> >>>> >>>> - Andrea Rossi >>>> June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM >>>> >>>> <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=8#comment-972560> >>>> >>>> Angel Blume: >>>> We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in >>>> operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At >>>> the >>>> moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, >>>> not >>>> years, though. >>>> Warm Regards, >>>> A.R. >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
