Jed, in my opinion, which I understand you already know more about than I do (quick to judgement and throwing stone sitting in glasshouse); Your opinion about that you are entitled to call others 'idiot', 'scammer', :'criminals' etc. is just free from all moral I subscribe to.--.In addition you claim others should listen to you because you know and all others do not. It is ignorant and shows an incredible poor understanding of people with different thinking than Jed. You said There is nothing unethical about attacking someone who has repeatedly committed illegal and immoral acts. On the other hand, you are mindlessly defending this person, and that is somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your behavior is poor judgment and unproven assumptions at best. There is no need to defend AR or the ERV as far as we know there are allegations from you and that is hardly good enough. Far from mindless and fully ethical until anything else is proven. Some people do not think they stink so they accuse others - truth is we all stink more or less. Ashamed, did not know you had that word might come in handy.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > > Jed, >> You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and think there >> are still many unknowns. >> > > For the last time: > > I am pretty sure I know the answers BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA. > > You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING. YOU HAVE > NO DATA. You have no way to judge anything, and no way to judge how much is > unknown, and how much is perfectly clear. > > You and I are not on equal ground. I am informed and you are ignorant. > > > >> I don't like ad hominem attacks you make on others such as Rossi and that >> is the only reason I have replied to you. >> > > I have attacked both the claims and Rossi, separately, so it is not ad > hominem. That is defined as follows: > > "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the > position they are maintaining." > > I am not directing the arguments against the person *rather than* the > position. I am directing separate arguments *against both*. > > I attacked the person because he refused access to the company, and > because the company is a dummy corporation with no income, no business, no > employees, and no inspections, so obviously it does not have equipment > using 1 MW of process heat. It is hard to imagine better proof of a > fraud, or a better reason to attack someone! > > There is nothing unethical about attacking someone who has repeatedly > committed illegal and immoral acts. On the other hand, you are mindlessly > defending this person, and that is somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks. > You should be ashamed of yourself. > > - Jed > >
