Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Alan Fletcher]

* 
Andrea Rossi 
June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM 


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 


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. 

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Lennart Thornros]

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
lenn...@thornros.com
+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  wrote:

>
>- Andrea Rossi
>June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM
>
>
>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
>
>
>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.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Kevin O'Malley]

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 
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
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +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  wrote:
>
>>
>>- Andrea Rossi
>>June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Lennart Thornros]

Kevin,
At least you have to try to believe that people are not all malicious. He
certainly could say that he is disappointed and that he feels that they
have broken their promises.
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).
There for sure are other motivational factors for people than greed.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+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  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 
> 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
>> lenn...@thornros.com
>> +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  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>- Andrea Rossi
>>>June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Lennart Thornros 
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
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +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 
> 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 
>> 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
>>> lenn...@thornros.com
>>> +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  wrote:
>>>

- Andrea Rossi
June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM

 

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

 

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.


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Alan Fletcher]

***Perhaps you are not familiar with Rossi's 
credibility issues regarding his past posts on JONP.Â


Contrariwise, almost everything he's referred to 
has come to fruition in one form or another. 
(Maybe not the automated factory, but where DID 
all those 1MW units, in 3 different models, come from?)


***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.Â


The test has only just ended. I just hope they 
had enough sample material to do multiple tests. 
That's the one aspect that could be done 
differently if the reviewers suggest/require it.


And I repeat my wish that they'd separate the 
calorimetric and mass spectrometry papers. 

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Daniel Rocha]

I don't know you people what you are seeing. That's really the most normal
answer Rossi ever game.

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Daniel Rocha]

*not game,
gave


2014-06-30 22:28 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> I don't know you people what you are seeing. That's really the most normal
> answer Rossi ever game.
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Lennart Thornros]

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"  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> 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
>> lenn...@thornros.com
>> +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 
>> 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 >> > 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
 lenn...@thornros.com
 +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  wrote:

>
>- Andrea Rossi
>June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM
>
> 
>
>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
>
> 
>
>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.
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Kevin O'Malley]

 Contrariwise, almost everything he's referred to has come to fruition in
one form or another. (Maybe not the automated factory, but where DID all
those 1MW units, in 3 different models, come from?)
***Oh really.  Where's that big, well known customer he claimed to have
shipped to in 2011?  Do you really expect that this report is going to be
peer reviewed?  The last one wasn't.


The test has only just ended.
***The REPORT was due in April.  The tests were done by March.


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
>  ***Perhaps you are not familiar with Rossi's credibility issues regarding
>> his past posts on JONP.Â
>>
>
> Contrariwise, almost everything he's referred to has come to fruition in
> one form or another. (Maybe not the automated factory, but where DID all
> those 1MW units, in 3 different models, come from?)
>
>  ***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.Â
>>  But these geniuses are ONLY NOW getting around to thinking about doing
>> it?  That simply does not add up.Â
>>
>
> The test has only just ended. I just hope they had enough sample material
> to do multiple tests. That's the one aspect that could be done differently
> if the reviewers suggest/require it.
>
> And I repeat my wish that they'd separate the calorimetric and mass
> spectrometry papers.
>

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Lennart Thornros 
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"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>> 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
>>> lenn...@thornros.com
>>> +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 
>>> 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 <
 lenn...@thornros.com> 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
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +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  wrote:
>
>>
>>- Andrea Rossi
>>June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM
>>
>> 
>>
>>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
>

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Lennart Thornros]

Kevin it does not make any difference to me if you are doing good or bad
decisions. As you are talking about it and think others are to blame - I
thought it was fair game and I do call a spade a spade. However, now you
have made an investment and when it goes sour then the solution is to find
a sinner. I understand that if it is not conspiracy then they are
individually ganging up on your investments. You have imagination I will
admit.
There is no accusation in that. Just simple fact. I have said all the time
it is a dangerous time to do investment in this genre. Nothing for
non-risk-takers.

Education or title has nothing to do with performance. You stated they are
'gurus' - well educated. I simply said that does not mean anything in
regards to what they have promised and should have known.

No, Kevin you are the one talking about conspiracy. I do not think, that
talk has any merit.

No, you did not say that AR is in a cover-up. However, he ought to be more
aware of what is going on than you and I. Then he is the one who has gotten
a timeline.
If he thought they are delaying, by pure evil and personal greed, he would
not be understanding of the delay.

We can leave my leadership business out of this argument. I certainly would
not try to lead you. To negative - a hopeless case. Or  maybe you just act?
Hope so.
I do not have to exhibit any leadership in a discussion that is just a
circle. Just thought that you should chill if you saw that it obviously is
nobody else thinking as you do.
Did you mention accusation? Heard the story about throwing rocks in
glasshouse.
I do not know your age. It could just as well be a compliment. My memory
although cloudy by the years, let me remember that at 21 I thought
everything should work. At that age I think I
could have invested and blamed someone else or the cold summer of -64. At
14 there were other things but investment that interested me. Do you think
I might get those hormones in that same frenzy? What is it that makes you
think so? Let me know .
BTW my English could be better - I knew that before you pointed it out - I
guess it was pure goodwill from your side.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+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 Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> 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"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>>> 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 eve

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Kevin it does not make any difference to me if you are doing good or bad
> decisions.
>
***Then why bring it up?



> As you are talking about it and think others are to blame - I thought it
> was fair game and I do call a spade a spade.
>
***Then I shall call your "strategic leadership" and other nonsense exactly
what it is as well.


> However, now you have made an investment and when it goes sour then the
> solution is to find a sinner
>
***How is that a solution?  It solves nothing.



> . I understand that if it is not conspiracy then they are individually
> ganging up on your investments.
>
***You seem fundamentally incapable of arguing without using strawmen to
prop up.  Where did I say they're "ganging up on my investments"?  I
didn't.  I said they are being selfish with the information they're
hoarding.



> You have imagination I will admit.
>
***And you don't.  A tragic flaw for someone who claims the mantle of
"strategic leadership".


> There is no accusation in that. Just simple fact. I have said all the time
> it is a dangerous time to do investment in this genre. Nothing for
> non-risk-takers.
>
***I'm glad to see that we agree.  The reason why it is a dangerous time to
invest in LENR is because of the selfish hoarding of information, a market
cornered by 7 PhD dudes who, in your view are simply incompetent but in my
view they are obviously engaging in insider trading.


>
> Education or title has nothing to do with performance.
>
***Now again you resort to a meaningless phrase, a cliche, rather than
developing your thoughts the way a "strategic leader" would be doing.



> You stated they are 'gurus' - well educated. I simply said that does not
> mean anything in regards to what they have promised and should have known.
>
***So here you are backtracking?  Are they incompetent?  The things they
"should have known" that the vast majority of vorticians knew was that
there should be isotopic testing.  They're just now figuring that out, and
you're just now backtracking enough to start with the acknowledgement that
such a thing shows tremendous incompetence.  So much incompetence that it
begs the question of... perhaps they're not that incompetent, just engaging
in insider trading.


>
> No, Kevin you are the one talking about conspiracy. I do not think, that
> talk has any merit.
>
***I did NOT talk about conspiracy.  You inserted and asserted it.

>
> No, you did not say that AR is in a cover-up. However, he ought to be more
> aware of what is going on than you and I. Then he is the one who has gotten
> a timeline.
> If he thought they are delaying, by pure evil and personal greed, he would
> not be understanding of the delay.
>
***And if he were in such a position as you describe, what would his post
on JONP look like?  Exactly like the one he posted.


>
> We can leave my leadership business out of this argument.
>
***As long as you're throwing zingers, zingers will be thrown back atcha.



> I certainly would not try to lead you.
>
***Good for you.  Maybe you can POTO to someone else and jump on a
bandwagon or two & call it leadership.


> To negative - a hopeless case.
>
***I was looking to put my money where my mouth is.  In your hopelessly
negative case, you do not appear to have put down one red cent where your
mouth is, you ain't a leader, you hide negative viewpoints out of fear, and
then you try to browbeat those who disagree with you.  Truly a hopeless
case.



> Or  maybe you just act? Hope so.
>
***If yours is an act, you need to change the tune.


> I do not have to exhibit any leadership in a discussion that is just a
> circle.
>
***Don't worry, you haven't exhibited any leadership in this discussion so
that's one concern you can pull off your table.



> Just thought that you should chill if you saw that it obviously is nobody
> else thinking as you do.
>
***Gosh, you mean I'm so far ahead in strategic leadership that someone
like you needs to look around for bandwagon joiners just so he can feel
reassured?  Maybe you should find a parade to step in front of so you can
pretend to be leading it... you'll feel reassured and it will look like
you're some kinda leader.  I hear you can get consulting gigs that way.



> Did you mention accusation? Heard the story about throwing rocks in
> glasshouse.
>
***Look back on our interactions.  You'll see the accusations coming from
you, and me responding.  Some leader you are...


> I do not know your age. It could just as well be a compliment. My memory
> although cloudy by the years, let me remember that at 21 I thought
> everything should work. At that age I think I
> could have invested and blamed someone else or the cold summer of -64. At
> 14 there were other things but investment that interested me. Do you think
> I might get those hormones in that same frenzy? What is it that makes you
> think so? Let me know .
>
***Stream of consciousness bullshit.  Look at your own glas

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Lennart Thornros]

In short Kevin it is not a way to take care of the professor' future
economic future . That is what I have said and continue saying.
The personal insults would upset me if I know myself as little as I know
you.
I hope you learnt from this investment it is a difficult game and seldom
does it follow the anticipated path.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+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 Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> Kevin it does not make any difference to me if you are doing good or bad
>> decisions.
>>
> ***Then why bring it up?
>
>
>
>> As you are talking about it and think others are to blame - I thought it
>> was fair game and I do call a spade a spade.
>>
> ***Then I shall call your "strategic leadership" and other nonsense
> exactly what it is as well.
>
>
>> However, now you have made an investment and when it goes sour then the
>> solution is to find a sinner
>>
> ***How is that a solution?  It solves nothing.
>
>
>
>>  . I understand that if it is not conspiracy then they are individually
>> ganging up on your investments.
>>
> ***You seem fundamentally incapable of arguing without using strawmen to
> prop up.  Where did I say they're "ganging up on my investments"?  I
> didn't.  I said they are being selfish with the information they're
> hoarding.
>
>
>
>> You have imagination I will admit.
>>
> ***And you don't.  A tragic flaw for someone who claims the mantle of
> "strategic leadership".
>
>
>>  There is no accusation in that. Just simple fact. I have said all the
>> time it is a dangerous time to do investment in this genre. Nothing for
>> non-risk-takers.
>>
> ***I'm glad to see that we agree.  The reason why it is a dangerous time
> to invest in LENR is because of the selfish hoarding of information, a
> market cornered by 7 PhD dudes who, in your view are simply incompetent but
> in my view they are obviously engaging in insider trading.
>
>
>>
>> Education or title has nothing to do with performance.
>>
> ***Now again you resort to a meaningless phrase, a cliche, rather than
> developing your thoughts the way a "strategic leader" would be doing.
>
>
>
>> You stated they are 'gurus' - well educated. I simply said that does not
>> mean anything in regards to what they have promised and should have known.
>>
> ***So here you are backtracking?  Are they incompetent?  The things they
> "should have known" that the vast majority of vorticians knew was that
> there should be isotopic testing.  They're just now figuring that out, and
> you're just now backtracking enough to start with the acknowledgement that
> such a thing shows tremendous incompetence.  So much incompetence that it
> begs the question of... perhaps they're not that incompetent, just engaging
> in insider trading.
>
>
>>
>> No, Kevin you are the one talking about conspiracy. I do not think, that
>> talk has any merit.
>>
> ***I did NOT talk about conspiracy.  You inserted and asserted it.
>
>>
>> No, you did not say that AR is in a cover-up. However, he ought to be
>> more aware of what is going on than you and I. Then he is the one who has
>> gotten a timeline.
>> If he thought they are delaying, by pure evil and personal greed, he
>> would not be understanding of the delay.
>>
> ***And if he were in such a position as you describe, what would his post
> on JONP look like?  Exactly like the one he posted.
>
>
>>
>> We can leave my leadership business out of this argument.
>>
> ***As long as you're throwing zingers, zingers will be thrown back atcha.
>
>
>
>> I certainly would not try to lead you.
>>
> ***Good for you.  Maybe you can POTO to someone else and jump on a
> bandwagon or two & call it leadership.
>
>
>> To negative - a hopeless case.
>>
> ***I was looking to put my money where my mouth is.  In your hopelessly
> negative case, you do not appear to have put down one red cent where your
> mouth is, you ain't a leader, you hide negative viewpoints out of fear, and
> then you try to browbeat those who disagree with you.  Truly a hopeless
> case.
>
>
>
>> Or  maybe you just act? Hope so.
>>
> ***If yours is an act, you need to change the tune.
>
>
>> I do not have to exhibit any leadership in a discussion that is just a
>> circle.
>>
> ***Don't worry, you haven't exhibited any leadership in this discussion so
> that's one concern you can pull off your table.
>
>
>
>> Just thought that you should chill if you saw that it obviously is nobody
>> else thinking as you do.
>>
> ***Gosh, you mean I'm so far ahead in strategic leadership that someone
> like you needs to look around for bandwagon joiners just so he can feel
> reassured?  Maybe you should find a parade to step in front of so you can
> pretend to be leading i

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> In short Kevin it is not a way to take care of the professor' future
> economic future . That is what I have said and continue saying.
>
***In short, you simply don't have a clue about how much temptation this
represents.  If you were working on a project and saw a check made out to
cash for $3Billion, would you be tempted to walk away & cash it?  If your
answer is no, you're completely disingenuine.  And there's more than
$3Billion on the table & at stake here.  Maybe more like $3T.



> The personal insults would upset me if I know myself as little as I know
> you.
>
***If the personal insults get to you so much, why do you hurl them?
Surely it is a poor reflection of someone who claims the mantle of
"strategic leadership".



> I hope you learnt from this investment it is a difficult game and seldom
> does it follow the anticipated path.
>
***The sun has not yet set nor has the fat lady sung on that investment.
But when you pay good money based upon PUBLIC information that the fat lady
is DUE to sing at 6pm Tuesday and here you are at Midnight & all she can
say is "I didn't anticipate that going out on stage is so overwhelming"
well, at that point you have a right to question the character, legitimacy,
professionalism, and personal motives of the fat lady.  And since you have
proven to be so inanely feckless at grasping simple concepts, I will spell
it out for you:  In this analogy, the fat lady represents the 7 PhD
scientists.  Thank you for your interactions.  It proves useful once in
awhile to post against a pasquinade.


>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Lennart Thornros]

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> ​Kevin, yes I had to look up "
> pasquinade
> ​". I did not think it was any satire in what I said​
> ​
> ​. I would say it is life. Yes, delayed and cancelled performances happens
> and that is regardless if they are publicly announced. Your analogy is not
> bad. A pity you cannot see the message. You need to invest depending on
> your knowledge and assess the risk and finally decide if you can live with
> the conditions. There are no sure investments. Even if your stocks seems
> like losers today - you never know (as you have not  done the homework)
> there may be another factor that brings the stock back or better. Let us
> hope so.
>


> I have no problem that you make statements about my profession. You do not
> know me and I have never worked with you so just go on and tell me how no
> good I am I hope you collect more data before you do investments.
>


> No, Kevin I do not understand that one can be so jealous that one consider
> stealing things. That people steal for basic need I understand but for
> greed - no. I have handled other peoples money and never did I feel I could
> / should or would 'walk away' with their checks. ​
>

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+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

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> ​Kevin, yes I had to look up "
>> pasquinade
>> ​". I did not think it was any satire in what I said​
>> ​
>> ​.
>>
> ***You'll need to look it up again.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquino
When someone calls you a pasquinade, it means you're as dumb as the
pasquino statue and do not have the ability to reply intelligently.



> I would say it is life. Yes, delayed and cancelled performances happens
>> and that is regardless if they are publicly announced. Your analogy is not
>> bad.
>>
> ***High praise, coming from you.



> A pity you cannot see the message.
>>
> ***The pity is in your corner because the fat lady is incompetent at
best.


> You need to invest depending on your knowledge and assess the risk and
>> finally decide if you can live with the conditions. There are no sure
>> investments. Even if your stocks seems like losers today - you never know
>> (as you have not  done the homework) there may be another factor that
>> brings the stock back or better. Let us hope so.
>>
> ***Luckily for me, I decided upthread that I wouldn't be taking any advice
from you.


>
>
>> I have no problem that you make statements about my profession. You do
>> not know me and I have never worked with you so just go on and tell me how
>> no good I am I hope you collect more data before you do investments.
>>
> ***Yup, you're the one who learned stuff from me and my creative insults,
like calling you a pasquinade.


>
>> No, Kevin I do not understand that one can be so jealous that one
>> consider stealing things.
>>
> ***That would explain the entire nature of our correspondence.



> That people steal for basic need I understand but for greed - no. I have
>> handled other peoples money and never did I feel I could / should or would
>> 'walk away' with their checks. ​
>>
> ***It's an analogy.  The analogy is that there's temptation.  Martha
Stewart had plenty of money when she engaged in insider trading.  People
are fallible, but you simply cannot see it if the supposed greedsters are
Swedish.


>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +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
>

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Lennart Thornros]

You are twisting words or make citations after your own interpretation.
Most of your stuff is just polemic.
Just fyi my idea about how theft can be understood or less condemned is not
an analogy. You had an analogy, which was good but you did not understand
the analogy.
As you bring up Marta Stewart - isn't she a good example of someone who
thought she was invisible. Problem was she did not understand her own
social situation because she was spoiled by being treated preferably. Not
the case with a few Swedish PhD's involved in a very high profile
technology as unbiased examiners.
I can hear you are looking for a fat incompetent lady - hope you do better
with that.

I did look up pasquinade and it says 'a creative work that uses sharp humor
to point up the foolishness of a person'.
or in another 'pas·qui·nade  (pskw-nd)
*n.*
A satire or lampoon, especially one that ridicules a specific person,
traditionally written and posted in a public place.
​'​
I am sure yours is better. Use words that has meaning there is many of them
in the English language.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+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 Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ​Kevin, yes I had to look up "
>>> pasquinade
>>> ​". I did not think it was any satire in what I said​
>>> ​
>>> ​.
>>>
>> ***You'll need to look it up again.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquino
> When someone calls you a pasquinade, it means you're as dumb as the
> pasquino statue and do not have the ability to reply intelligently.
>
>
>
>>  I would say it is life. Yes, delayed and cancelled performances happens
>>> and that is regardless if they are publicly announced. Your analogy is not
>>> bad.
>>>
>> ***High praise, coming from you.
>
>
>
>>  A pity you cannot see the message.
>>>
>> ***The pity is in your corner because the fat lady is incompetent at
> best.
>
>
>> You need to invest depending on your knowledge and assess the risk and
>>> finally decide if you can live with the conditions. There are no sure
>>> investments. Even if your stocks seems like losers today - you never know
>>> (as you have not  done the homework) there may be another factor that
>>> brings the stock back or better. Let us hope so.
>>>
>> ***Luckily for me, I decided upthread that I wouldn't be taking any
> advice from you.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> I have no problem that you make statements about my profession. You do
>>> not know me and I have never worked with you so just go on and tell me how
>>> no good I am I hope you collect more data before you do investments.
>>>
>> ***Yup, you're the one who learned stuff from me and my creative insults,
> like calling you a pasquinade.
>
>
>>
>>> No, Kevin I do not understand that one can be so jealous that one
>>> consider stealing things.
>>>
>> ***That would explain the entire nature of our correspondence.
>
>
>
>>  That people steal for basic need I understand but for greed - no. I have
>>> handled other peoples money and never did I feel I could / should or would
>>> 'walk away' with their checks. ​
>>>
>> ***It's an analogy.  The analogy is that there's temptation.  Martha
> Stewart had plenty of money when she engaged in insider trading.  People
> are fallible, but you simply cannot see it if the supposed greedsters are
> Swedish.
>
>
>>
>> Best Regards ,
>> Lennart Thornros
>>
>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
>> lenn...@thornros.com
>> +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
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> You are twisting words or make citations after your own interpretation.
> Most of your stuff is just polemic.
>
***So is yours, you're just a crappy writer.


> Just fyi my idea about how theft can be understood or less condemned is
> not an analogy. You had an analogy, which was good but you did not
> understand the analogy.
>
***There you go again, giving an assertion as if it were a reason.  Of
COURSE I understood the analogy, because I was the one who INTRODUCED it.
But you can't see the fat lady having ulterior motives because you refuse
to.  Head in the sand.   You're ridiculous.



> As you bring up Marta Stewart - isn't she a good example of someone who
> thought she was invisible.
>
***Man, are you way off here.  She had millions of TV followers from her
show.  Where do you come up with this stuff?



> Problem was she did not understand her own social situation because she
> was spoiled by being treated preferably.
>
***A lot like them there your swedish friends.



> Not the case with a few Swedish PhD's involved in a very high profile
> technology as unbiased examiners.
>
***Umm, do we even know who they are?  Talk about thinking one is
invisible, getting spoiled by being treated "preferably".


> I can hear you are looking for a fat incompetent lady - hope you do better
> with that.
>
***I can hear you are looking for a clue.  Best for you to go down to the
corner store and purchase one.

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> You are twisting words or make citations after your own interpretation.
>

***No, it's just a simple matter of a typo.  I posted that you should go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquino
to learn more about it.  I was using the derivative "pasquinade" when it
should have been "pasquino".

The Pasquino is the statue.  The pasquinade is the missive posted onto the
pasqunino.  You are the pasquino.  You are a statue who cannot reason
credibly, nor answer intelligently.

But thank you for looking up "pasquinade".  It is bizarre that you think
you could have been the one writing the lampoon and posting it onto the
pasquino.

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Lennart Thornros]

If you are throwing around words you do not manage you end up using them
wrong and it backfires. Sorry for you.

Just fyi the Swedes are not my friends - I do not even know them or know
much about them.

I agree with that my writing skills are less good - particularly as this is
my second language.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+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 Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> You are twisting words or make citations after your own interpretation.
>>
>
> ***No, it's just a simple matter of a typo.  I posted that you should go
> to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquino
> to learn more about it.  I was using the derivative "pasquinade" when it
> should have been "pasquino".
>
> The Pasquino is the statue.  The pasquinade is the missive posted onto the
> pasqunino.  You are the pasquino.  You are a statue who cannot reason
> credibly, nor answer intelligently.
>
> But thank you for looking up "pasquinade".  It is bizarre that you think
> you could have been the one writing the lampoon and posting it onto the
> pasquino.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review

[Kevin O'Malley]

Your writing skills are good enough.  It is your thinking skills that need
a lot of work.  You don't seem able to grasp simple concepts, you browbeat,
you use assertions and call them reasons, you can't avoid straw
argumentation, you put your head in the sand and shout so no one can change
your mind.  It appears that  critical thinking is a third language for
you.


On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> If you are throwing around words you do not manage you end up using them
> wrong and it backfires. Sorry for you.
>
> Just fyi the Swedes are not my friends - I do not even know them or know
> much about them.
>
> I agree with that my writing skills are less good - particularly as this
> is my second language.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +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 Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You are twisting words or make citations after your own interpretation.
>>>
>>
>> ***No, it's just a simple matter of a typo.  I posted that you should go
>> to
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquino
>> to learn more about it.  I was using the derivative "pasquinade" when it
>> should have been "pasquino".
>>
>> The Pasquino is the statue.  The pasquinade is the missive posted onto
>> the pasqunino.  You are the pasquino.  You are a statue who cannot reason
>> credibly, nor answer intelligently.
>>
>> But thank you for looking up "pasquinade".  It is bizarre that you think
>> you could have been the one writing the lampoon and posting it onto the
>> pasquino.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>