I do not know how you defend your own greed - especially if you have made the wrong decision. Kevin you are just one of. My point was not that AR should say something els9e - he could say something less irritating to you and othersthat belive conspiracy is the issue. Reality is that you are just concerned about yourown greed. You have made another big mistake that makes me belive you are 21. Reality is that education and academical merits has no correlation to ability of making things happen - often the opposite. Observe I have never said that it is OK with not living up to ones promises, just that conspiracy does not go with the territory. AR's response isso farfrom acover up that even you . . . . On Jun 30, 2014 5:14 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
