On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Randy Wuller <rwul...@freeark.com> wrote: > And that comment is actually very misleading. Dick Smith didn't even bother > to try an negotiate anything with Defkalion. He backed away almost > instantly when they in principal accepted his offer. The idea he could test > without an NDA of some sort is ridiculous. Certainly Defkalion would have a > right to protect some aspects of information disclosed to or discovered by > testers and they never ever suggested results of the tests would be governed > by an NDA. Dick Smith is not serious about this and has a preformed bias > about what is happening.
Could you (or anyone) post the actual terms that were rejected? > Ransom > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Xavier Luminous" > <xavier.lumin...@googlemail.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 4:50 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan drops his support of Rossi > > > >> 2012/3/16 Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> Hyperions, then there is no reasons to doubt their words. (Too bad that >>> Dick >>> Smith cancelled the opportunity to test hyperions rigorously, if he had >>> not, >>> then we already would know whether Hyperions are real or phoney.) >> >> >> That's a little misleading. If I remember correctly, Dick Smith >> cancelled because Defkalion didn't agree to full disclosure of the >> test results (or something like that) >> >> >
