Rossi is a businessman who wants to make money.  Solid testing would be awesome 
marketing but he doesn't want to attract attention, yet he invites AP reporters 
to observe tests. He doesn't need black box tests because he already has 
customers, and though a satisfied customer is the best marketing available, his 
customers are all sworn to secrecy? He is fine with shoddy demoes because he's 
from the Old School. He just wants to sell devices, but not too many, and yet 
every device sold could be torn apart and duplicated.  He doesn't have a patent 
because the one he filed was intentionally absurd. 

The rationalization required to describe a self consistent narrative out of 
these random, contradictory facts is mind boggling. 


On Nov 26, 2011, at 20:45, Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Terry, take a moment and google and review the cases of:
> 
> Bedini
> Dennis Lee
> Sniffex (and it's $100 million lethal successors such as the ADE651,
> GT200, H3 Tec, HEDD1, AL-6D)
> Perendev
> Mylow
> Jeff Otto
> Carl Tilley
> Aviso
> Any scam of the day at peswiki.com (Sterling cycles them through more
> than once a week)
> and don't forget a detailed study of Steorn
> Any HHO scam, one of which recently killed three participants in a Los
> Angeles suburb and blew up a building
> 
> And there are many, many others I could look up but it probably
> wouldn't sway you one bit.
> 
> All of the above are scams, scammers, and con men.  Most are investor
> scams rather than product scams.  A few have been caught.  Some are
> convicted felons, like Rossi.  Most don't get caught-- at least not
> for a while and not for every scam.  Some scams are unusually deadly
> -- for example explosive detector scams which killed a dozen people on
> camera in Thailand and possibly hundreds or thousands of anonymous
> people in Iraq and wasted about a hundred million dollars in US aid to
> Iraq.
> 
> Do you live in a world of blissful innocence in which everyone is
> honest and you can believe what they say simply because they say it?
> 

Reply via email to