Rossi decided to leave the DGT arrangement, not DGT. DGT simply would not give Rossi any money for a flawed reactor design. Rossi worked to fix the control of his reactor for some time after DGT refused to pay for his reactor. Is this what "starve him into submission" means? Rossi asked DGT many times for money, and DGT said no many times. Is this what "starve him into submission" means?
When his money got really tight, Rossi had to leave the DGT deal to find R&D funding. Totally understandable. But without Rossi, DGT was in trouble, don't you think. If you remember, Rossi had little personal money remaining to fix his reactor so he had to do repeated demos to interest somebody to fund his further development. Rossi was never successful in getting DGT to fund addition reactor development of his fraud design. DGT then made of build over buy decision. I believe that if DGT had not come up with the solution for his reactor control problem, Rossi would still be working on that original failed design. This is all strictly business; there is no blame here and no plan to "starve him into submission". On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > When Rossi decided to leave DGT holding the bag by pulling out of the > deal, > > DGT was faced with a forced closure of their operation. > > WTF, Axil, are you rewriting history?!? > > DGT promised funding to Rossi if he met certain criteria. That > included a stable reactor by a certain deadline. > > Rossi had a reactor; but, it was not stable. DGT pulled the funding > based on Rossi's failure to meet the requirements of the agreement and > decided to pursue the project on their own. > > Who are you and why are you doing this? > >
