Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction. On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > I have thought

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR reactions. When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission reactions. The ash analysis results have been all over the board. On 7/11/17, Axil Axil

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

The gamma ray finding of MFMP was replicated within 48 hours by Hans Biberian. And then they just faded away onto whatever it is they've been doing for 4 years. On 7/10/17, Che wrote: > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

You sound like someone who doesn't want to see LENR succeed. Seems about the right position, for a communist. On 7/11/17, Che wrote: > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >> >> Mary Yugo said he was contacted by investors

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

That's the whole point of having an independent 3rd party. Apparently Rossi has the ability to change reality perception when he's around, similar to Steve Jobs. On 7/11/17, H LV wrote: > If that is true then Rossi either lacks the ability to interpret his own > data or he

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

That would be just like him. On 7/11/17, Jones Beene wrote: > > Wait a minute. There is still Randell Mills to deal with, and he says he > can not only heat up a cup of coffee but evaporate it in a burst of > hydrinos in seconds. He has better credentials than any of us, and

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

investments in alternate energy source investments and fossil fuel based energy. Sifferkoll’s blog has addressed this issue in the past. Bob Cook From: H LV<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subj

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

days. > > > > From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:03 PM > To: Vortex > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled > > > > Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com <mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Che wrote: > Not so - no one here that I am aware of - sneers at MFMP. Or if they do - >> they are misguided. >> > > Well they have. Right here. Recently. > Who sneered? Who are "they"? - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Che wrote > > People here sneer at the likes of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial > Project.. but say what you will: its very OPEN [Source] nature is what > *will* at least keep it out of the grubby clutches of

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > Mary Yugo said he was contacted by investors looking to verify Rossi. He told them what to test for, and Rossi never had anything to do with them. The only way Rossi is going to find an investor now is to have the

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Now that Rossi has much more free time, I expect him to have bold strides in making new devices. The bad times are now past!

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example, Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it in the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is based on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica. This

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

If that is true then Rossi either lacks the ability to interpret his own data or he intentionally misrepresented his data. Harry On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > You're probably right. But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for > some length of

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Wait a minute. There is still Randell Mills to deal with, and he says he can not only heat up a cup of coffee but evaporate it in a burst of hydrinos in seconds. He has better credentials than any of us, and he has followers who are more loyal than Rossi's. Prediction: Very soon, Mills will

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

R Mills is producing a teacup full of self sustaining 3000C plasma. Don't worry be happy. On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Frank Znidarsic wrote: > > endless spewing of hate > > > > > That's where this has all come to. No device was developed to heat a cup > of coffee, as

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I agree with Frank's assessment. From: Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled endless spewing of hate That's where this has al

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Russ George wrote: Obscenity is also the endless spewing of hate that comes from your mouth. > Your hate mongering is amongst the most obscene that takes place on Vortex. > I suggest you block my messages. If you wish to know why I am opposed to Rossi, I suggest you read

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

endless spewing of hate That's where this has all come to. No device was developed to heat a cup of coffee, as Mallove was requested to produce. 27 years later there is no cup of warm coffee. I worked on this technology hard for some time. I felt it was coming. I am now

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

from their arm chairs. Get a real life. From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:37 AM To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Russ George wrote: This endless trollification by the unflushable malcontents that did not get > their free feed in the trial are festering into a terrible stench. Give it > a f*ckng break or at least go see your doctors and get some new meds, there > are remarkably good

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

see your doctors and get some new meds, there are remarkably good meds for senile agitation these days. From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:03 PM To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On 7/10/17, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Unless you took part in the lawyers' negotiations, you do not know that is > the reason. ***You don't have to be involved at that level. If the report was a slam dunk either way it would have compelled the outcome of the case. It wasn't

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Kevin O'Malley wrote: The report was credible enough for IH not to move forward on their case. > Unless you took part in the lawyers' negotiations, you do not know that is the reason. It might be because they determined Rossi has no more money. There is no point to suing

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

The report was credible enough for IH not to move forward on their case. I'm glad to see you got a start on delineating all the scientific charlatanism in that report and in the case. On 7/10/17, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > You're

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Kevin O'Malley wrote: You're probably right. But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for > some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by > both sides to administer the test. > You mean the report that claims the laboratory was in a perfect vacuum, and

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On 7/10/17, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I cannot judge legal standards. ***Then stop using a legal term. It's like saying that by scientific standards and by common sense standards your neighbor is guilty of armed robbery. If there were "scientific standards" to begin

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

You're probably right. But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by both sides to administer the test. On 7/10/17, H LV wrote: > Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the device >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > I think the key is to just find nuclear products when you throw hydrogen and nickel together. There is no chemical reaction that is supposed to lead to nuclear products. 3 years ago, MFMP found gamma rays and then

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the device in Florida worked as he claimed. If the trial proceeded I think it is very likely that the preponderance of the evidence would not support his claim. Harry On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Kevin O'Malley wrote: > On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell wrote: > OJ Simpson... > > Obviously he was guilty. > ***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud. You just agreed with > the legal standard. > I cannot judge legal standards. By scientific

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell wrote: OJ Simpson... > Obviously he was guilty. ***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud. You just agreed with the legal standard. > All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes. ***Bullshit. Plenty of others have read the

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Jed Rothwell 5:36 PM (5 hours ago) Nope. The legal system does not sue scientists for publishing fraudulent or idiotic reports. ***The legal system brings its resources to bear upon scientists who scam others with fraudulent reports. One reason is that no one can tell fools and frauds apart.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Kevin O'Malley wrote: > You would have to show intent and various legal proof that I do not >> understand. >> > ​***If you don't understand it then you're just as bad as these people you > rail against for not reading the Penon report. > I don't claim to understand the

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Kevin O'Malley wrote: > The Penon report?!? >> > ​***ALL of it. The Penon report, the supposed heat exchanger, all of it. > If the Penon report is as fraudulent as you make it out to be, then > Rossi would be up on charges for that. > Nope. The legal system does not

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I think the key is to just find nuclear products when you throw hydrogen and nickel together. There is no chemical reaction that is supposed to lead to nuclear products. 3 years ago, MFMP found gamma rays and then just blithely started chasing ghosts. On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > ​ > > The Penon report?!? > ​***ALL of it. The Penon report, the supposed heat exchanger, all of it. If the Penon report is as fraudulent as you make it out to be, then Rossi would be up on charges for that. All

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Kevin O'Malley wrote: > As soon as they verify a LENR experiment that many who have the means can > do in our garages, the cat is out of the bag. > That may never happen. It may be that cold fusion is inherently difficult, like making a fuel cell or performing an

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Kevin O'Malley wrote: It is proof that he isn't a fraud. > The Penon report?!? Either you haven't read it or your interpretation of it is the extreme opposite or what Murray, Smith and I think of it. I have never seen such blatant, in-your-face fraud. If this report does

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

It is proof that he isn't a fraud. All the evidence is there, tagged and bagged, ready to go for the police to file charges. All it takes is for someone to drop a dime on Rossi. Maybe you'll get some kind of reward for it. On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Jed Rothwell

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > Rossi is the latest LENR guy who has $signs in his eyes. Patterson was a solid example of that. I like the hope that MFMP offers to circumvent that problem. As soon as they verify a LENR experiment that many who

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Kevin O'Malley wrote: If Rossi's report proves he is a thief then he would be up on charges. Only if it were a serious crime. Most crimes are not even investigated, for lack of police personnel. Also, the police would have to understand the report. I doubt many of them do.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Woodford Investments probably does not want Industrial Heat pursuing the matter. Harry On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > If Rossi's report proves he is a thief then he would be up on charges. > > On Friday, July 7, 2017, Jed Rothwell

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

If Rossi's report proves he is a thief then he would be up on charges. On Friday, July 7, 2017, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil > wrote: > > I don't remember writing a post that personally attacked

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

The Gamma Ray thing happened in 2013, that was the link I posted. I am glad to see someone at MFMP taking this seriously. On Friday, July 7, 2017, Mark Jurich wrote: > I wrote: > > Yes, we (MFMP) did pursue the “Gamma Ray Thing” (we made an > unsuccessful replication

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I wrote: Yes, we (MFMP) did pursue the “Gamma Ray Thing” (we made an unsuccessful replication attempt, and I myself have not given up on it), and we cannot say there was excess heat, because the apparent excess heat was less than the error of the crude calorimeter measurement… …

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Axil Axil wrote: I don't remember writing a post that personally attacked Jed. > Yeah? Who the hell are you accusing of "spin, astroturfing and propaganda produced by I.H." if not me? Who else? If you are not accusing me, you are accusing other people who support I.H., which

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

This is not how a socialist talks. This is all due capitalism, name calling different times in the class struggle. These are all synonyms, made by those who are afraid of seeking revolution. 2017-07-07 18:02 GMT-03:00 Che : > > > Neoliberal age of oligarchic

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I don't remember writing a post that personally attacked Jed. If I did, let anybody please repost it here. Jed does tend to get excessively emotional and carried away. I would like to remember if I deserve such a lambasting. Both Rossi and IH descended into a war of words, IH more effectively

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

The last time a battle of this magnitude took place, it was the Wright brothers and all the slimy weasels like Curtiss who were trying to steal their IP. It went on for a long time with no end in sight until the guvmint stepped in for the sake of the war effort in Europe, so we could make

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Rossi is the latest LENR guy who has $signs in his eyes. Patterson was a solid example of that. I like the hope that MFMP offers to circumvent that problem. As soon as they verify a LENR experiment that many who have the means can do in our garages, the cat is out of the bag. MIT Professor

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

… I am still trying to convince the group to take another crack at it, with a more sophisticated radiation measurement that requires some building and a small amount of funding. ***That means you have not been pursuing it. It's been 4 years and basically no mention on the MFMP blog. Even if

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Yup, this is just the first battle in the patent wars. It will last > decades until some billionaire steps in. > Oligarchic 'Capitalism' (parasitism) does not HAVE decades. But maybe none of the rest of us do,

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Celani detected gamma rays when Rossi's reactor got started, and Rossi > came down hard on him for bringing a Geiger counter. So yes, there was a > Nuclear event occuring in Rossi's apparatus for at least that short

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

e >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Wed, Jul 5, 2017 6:20 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled >> >> Kevin O'Malley <

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

d compared to me. > > - Jed > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 5:20 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled > > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.c

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

not contributed anything to this field compared to me. - Jed -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 5:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled Axil Axil <janap...@g

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Axil Axil wrote: As produced by IH, the spin, astroturfing and propaganda that LENR has seen > is just a foretaste of the effort that will be put forward by the > oil/gas/coal/wind/solar industries when LENR goes public. > Axil: You said that he has not read the Penon

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

e. So > much hope dashed! > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Jul 5, 2017 6:20 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled > >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

t; Sent: Wed, Jul 5, 2017 6:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: If Rossi has managed to be the great magician that his detractors claim, his next set of investors might think about bringing a thermometer to the test

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

d a small amount of funding. > > > > Mark Jurich > > > > *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, July 06, 2017 7:57 PM > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled > >

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled Frustratingly, they never pursued the Gamma ray thing. They just dropped it without explanation. On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote: A gamma ray burst was

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Status Quo Ante Bellum, as I predicted. It is a mystery why IH didn't accept this offer a long time ago. On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > The judge issued an "order of dismissal." It says "this matter is > dismissed with prejudice," "all parties

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Frustratingly, they never pursued the Gamma ray thing. They just dropped it without explanation. On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > A gamma ray burst was detected in a MFMP experiment just before excess > heat began. So yes, a nuclear event occurred in the

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

The judge issued an "order of dismissal." It says "this matter is dismissed with prejudice," "all parties shall bear their own fees and costs" and "all pending motions are denied as moot." This is Item 333, here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

A gamma ray burst was detected in a MFMP experiment just before excess heat began. So yes, a nuclear event occurred in the MFMP's apparatus for at least that short time. On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Celani detected gamma rays when Rossi's reactor

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Celani detected gamma rays when Rossi's reactor got started, and Rossi came down hard on him for bringing a Geiger counter. So yes, there was a Nuclear event occuring in Rossi's apparatus for at least that short time. On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Che wrote: >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

In a fully open source project (such as some of the software development I am involved with) I assume the patent trolls are not able to jump in on the stuff that is published. I assume the danger is that they take the open source info and patent some/all of the as yet unpublished extensions,

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Che wrote People here sneer at the likes of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project.. but say what you will: its very OPEN [Source] nature is what *will* at least keep it out of the grubby clutches of moneyed-interests. Not so - no one here that I am aware of - sneers at MFMP. Or if they do

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Che wrote: > Was there, or was there not, cold fusion occurring, in Rossi's apparatus? > At any time? > Probably not, but we cannot be sure. There are some positive reports such as: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf Unfortunately, this was followed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Mary Yugo said he was contacted by investors looking to verify Rossi. He told them what to test for, and Rossi never had anything to do with them. The only way Rossi is going to find an investor now is to have the darned thing tested with true independence, like an investor bringing you along.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > I with the crook will be prevented to be a nuisance again... > whoever you think it is (I have an opinion). > I truly doubt matters are that simple. Was there, or was there not, cold fusion occurring, in Rossi's

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > I think that, because things were kept in secret, it will keep going with, > perhaps, more steam (pun intended, LOL!!!). > Secrecy -- the utter bane of scientific research AND democracy -- is wholly a factor in all

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Kevin O'Malley wrote: If Rossi has managed to be the great magician that his detractors claim, > his next set of investors might think about bringing a thermometer to the > test. > No can do. He invited me to a test. I said I would bring a thermometer. * He told me I would

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

lt;danieldi...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 5, 2017 1:02 PM > *To:* John Milstone > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled > > I think that, because things were kept in secret, it will keep going with, > perhaps, more steam (pun intended, LOL!!!). &g

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Abd reports that Darden was the only one who wasn't smiling. He probably had bigger legal fees. On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Abd reports the trial was settled. Or called off. Withdrawn. I do not know > what this means in legal terms. See: > >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Che wrote: > My take on the major factor which led to the withdrawal of claims is that >> Rossi's attorney finally realized that he could not ethically put Rossi on >> the stand and let Rossi testify to those details which were in the >> deposition but which were so

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Brian Ahern wrote: > I think LENR has been damaged grievously. > I think so too. I hope I.H. can get back into the game. > Rossi will probably highlight the Quark X. All his followers should invest > immediately before the rush! > I gather he is already lining up new

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Note that Abd revised & expanded his blog entry. Here is my take. This is what I wrote at LENR Forum: "Thank goodness. I wish Rossi had gotten his comeuppance publicly, but more than that I dreaded the possibility that he might win. I wish they had settled long ago. What a terrible waste of

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

ct: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled I think that, because things were kept in secret, it will keep going with, perhaps, more steam (pun intended, LOL!!!). 2017-07-05 13:55 GMT-03:00 Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com<mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com>>: I with the crook

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I think that, because things were kept in secret, it will keep going with, perhaps, more steam (pun intended, LOL!!!). 2017-07-05 13:55 GMT-03:00 Alain Sepeda : > I with the crook will be prevented to be a nuisance again... > whoever you think it is (I have an opinion). >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I with the crook will be prevented to be a nuisance again... whoever you think it is (I have an opinion). 2017-07-05 18:50 GMT+02:00 Daniel Rocha : > So much drama for nothing... >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

So much drama for nothing...

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Everyone will have an opinion, but the details are not public. I suspect > that some of the details will seep out over time. > > My take on the major factor which led to the withdrawal of claims is that > Rossi's attorney

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Everyone will have an opinion, but the details are not public. I suspect that some of the details will seep out over time. My take on the major factor which led to the withdrawal of claims is that Rossi's attorney finally realized that he could not ethically put Rossi on the stand and let

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Does your concept of reading the depositions apply to someone who claims > to be a lawyer? > I do not understand this question. I referred to the depositions by Smith, which are technical: EXPERT REPORT OF RICK A. SMITH, P.E., Document 235-1

[Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Abd reports the trial was settled. Or called off. Withdrawn. I do not know what this means in legal terms. See: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/ RvD settled! All claims and counterclaims withdrawn. Jury dismissed. Agreement, if any, was private. Full details, such as I have, when I get home.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Jed: I'm responding here because I'm not allowed to respond at LENR forum for 2 weeks. Does your concept of reading the depositions apply to someone who claims to be a lawyer? WoodWorker claimed to be a lawyer and in his intro made a big deal about Penon not showing up to back up his report.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

this off. It is very un-professional. > > Frank Znidarsic > > > -Original Message- > From: Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 6:56 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden > > Hah hah,

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Will you all please knock this off. It is very un-professional. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 6:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden Hah hah, Eric is such

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Hah hah, Eric is such a wuss. He allows insults from one side but not from the other side. Vorts are basically unwelcomed over there. It's the new hangout for the anti-Rossi anti-LENR crowd since Ecatnews shut down. ultrasure

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Here is Eric Walker's latest move of one of my responses over to his garbage thread, without explanation, without notice, and without moving the precipitating post which apparently uses the same offensive term of 'bullshit'. Online

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

​Ok then. At what point are you "disengaging"? If you "clarify" after you "disengage" you haven't really "disengaged", have you? At what point do you start moderating according to your own posted standards? ​ On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Eric, you said you would not post any more. The issue isn't that Mary Yugo insults people. The issue is that you ALLOW those insults from one side but not another. You like to read intent in what I do but you aren't reading intent into what THEY do. And I'm not even saying to exclude Mary.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have > something else to say. You aren't even a man of your word. > Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter with you.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Geez, Eric, it's like pulling teeth. You don't see where the source of the problem is. The source is when someone STARTS insults and gets away with it. You let some people on your forum insult away. Now you want to attract Vorts who are going to have to go through the same kind of bullshit

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

wrote: My reply accidentally went to Roger's personal email address. Eric -- Forwarded message -- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> Hi Roger, I

Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

My reply accidentally went to Roger's personal email address. Eric -- Forwarded message -- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> Hi Roger,

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

>>We would ideally not attract pugnacious participants Galileo was pugnacious On Monday, 3 July 2017, 16:11, Eric Walker wrote: Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You have a perception of someone who claims to

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content > but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only > one side of the insults. > Crass language and attacks

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >