On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do not know how you defend your own greed - > ***That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. > especially if you have made the wrong decision. > ***Why should it make ANY difference to you, whatsoever? > Kevin you are just one of. > ***You'll need to rewrite that sentence because it has no meaning. > 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. > ***So, you're back to reiterating your point. One thing to keep in mind is that a conspiracy does not necessarily have to exist for this outcome to be as late as it is. Each one of those 7 PhD's could have decided INDEPENDENTLY to take advantage of the information. > Reality is that you are just concerned about yourown greed. > ***Reality is you're deflecting, and now getting accusatory. > You have made another big mistake that makes me belive you are 21. > ***Insults now, huh? Such poorly crafted insults make me believe you are 14. You certainly have no business claiming "strategic leadership" as a tagline; more like strategic bandwagon joining and purely conventional, inside-the-box thinking. > Reality is that education and academical merits has no correlation to > ability of making things happen - often the opposite. > ***Perhaps some day I might possibly care enough about what you just wrote to ask you to clarify it. > 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. > ***There you go again, with a straw argument of conspiracy. > AR's response isso farfrom acover up that even you . . . . > ***When did I EVER claim that Rossi is engaging in a coverup? Please try to exhibit some of that strategic leadership you lay such a claim upon. Stop using straw arguments. > 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
