Sorry Jed. No one would accept the situation you describe. If the
situation was unacceptable they should have hired another ERV. They
should have put it i writing, at the start, that it was not acceptable.
The fact that IH have not claimed this means it is unlikely they took
that action.
Whatever the lawyers write about their opinions are not scientific
facts. Lets see what instrumentation was used and what the ERV had to
say about it before making wild accusations.
What I said about Rossi being a red herring is because the referee was
the ERV. What he did and said are key.
On 6/4/2016 10:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
No. that is not what I said or meant. To repeat it, why wouldn't
IH have told the ERV that his proposal for instrumentation
wouldn't be satisfactory before the test started?
They did.
IF they accepted it, it's no good complaining later.
They didn't accept it. No one would.
Further, we only have Jed's secondhand word for it that is was
improper.
Incorrect. You have their motion to dismiss. That's what it says:
". . . departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable
reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable
measuring devices."
I need to see what was actually used before jumping to conclusions.
I have already seen what was actually used, so I am not jumping to
conclusions. I suggest you wait and see before taking sides. I think
you have jumped to conclusions.
To keep on stating that Rossi stopped them is a red herring.
He said he did! You don't even believe him???
- Jed
