"financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash from credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy agreements" and remain silent after they have been swindled because they are too ashamed, or something. Sure. That is about as good a scam hypothesis as I can come up with. However, it does not fit the available information, which seems to indicate that Rossi is refusing investments because he wants to maintain control. And it requires numerous leaps of faith.
My experience with R&D financing is also inconsistent with the secrecy hypothesis. Lots of companies get (have gotten in the past and will get in the future) private investment money for projects in an R&D phase, with failure to deliver not being automatically a scam: investors put money there for the potential large payoff, related to the large risk. That means they want a large share of the resulting profits, usually written as shares in the company itself. The financed company likes to publicize investment, in order to attract more investments. Even more so should be true for a scammer, who needs to get money quickly, before he is found out. There is anyway no legitimate reason for the R&D company to ask for secrecy from the investors, as any lawyer would point out. So, it should be more "financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash from VERY credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy agreements IN OTHERWISE VERY WISHY-WASHY CONTRACTS THEY CANNOT ENFORCE", and all that because convinced by the shining personality of Rossi and his perfectly run experiments, and neglecting to take along a lawyer. OK, hypnosis could be an explanation, then. With your permission, I will keep thinking that a scam seems highly unlikely from a business case point of view. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com> wrote: > see -- you start with a big ad hominem blast, full of pure speculations to > justify ignoring Mary's cogent points, which have many times advanced my > own thinking, such as the possibly of financial fraud based on secretly > accepting cash from credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure > secrecy agreements -- hence, no evidence for skeptics to cite... > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Marcello Vitale <mvit...@ucsbalum.net>wrote: > > now, now, Rich, don't be silly. Just because Mary is obviously a shut-in >> with nothing else to do but write the same superficial drivel on every blog >> devoted to this topic, over and over again, and just because people just >> stop wasting their time answering her, that does not mean she is "winning >> the argument". She is just shouting the loudest, the others are leaving her >> alone, not stopping to do what they did before she started her yelling. >> >> I follow blogs to gather information from other people taking different >> views of an argument. Participate only when I have some contribution to >> give. My expertise in industrial B2B, intellectual property and research >> makes me really wonder how this could ever be a scam. The arguments of the >> skeptics don't make sense from a business point of view, as I wrote in a >> long post before: I am still waiting for a reasonable hypothesis on how is >> Rossi ever going to make money unless he is truthful. Whereas the >> intellectual property position partly explains the (risky) business >> strategy. >> >> Finally, the objections to the experiments and demonstrations, not just >> of Rossi but of many others in the LENR pursuit, are just ludicrous for >> somebody like me who works every day through the fog of the always >> inconsistent experimental results to try and get to salable products. He >> who shows you pictures of a perfectly clean lab with perfectly clean >> devices is unbelievable, in the lab duct tape is king! And she who asks >> for something without having an agreement to buy on agreed-upon specs is >> just white noise :-)) >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the >>> level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts... >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: >>> >>>> You really know how to cause injury to someone. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Marcello Vitale <mvit...@ucsbalum.net> >>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>>> Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. >>>> >>>> All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way >>>> to twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :-)))) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale <mvit...@ucsbalum.net >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where >>>>>> the customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is >>>>>> an >>>>>> expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail >>>>>> snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam >>>>>> victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, >>>>>> sooooooo >>>>>> normal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not sure what you're saying here. It seems as if Rossi is asking a >>>>> scammer to sell his ecat. Why? He can't get a legitimate sales company >>>>> for heavy equipment or power equipment to do it? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >
