KitemanSA wrote:I tend to agree with your "thought" except I haven't ruled out delusion nor a SMALL likelihood that he might be on to something.MSimon wrote: Me? I think Rossi is a fraud. And a very good one. I believe this game has gone on longer than EEStor.
You stated, you "think" he is a fraud". The others state categorically that "he is a fraud". Where is their proof?
I suspect you have seen sufficient indicators that you "think" he is a fraud. Fair enough.
I "think" he is a fraud or a megalomaniac, or maybe just with a very remote likelihood a miracle might be happening and he might be right.
I think that the chances that he is anything other than a fraud are so infinitesimally small that we might as well just say "he is a fraud". You're consumed with the idea that we must all acknowledge the sliver of possibility that we are wrong in our assessment or we are somehow being intellectually dishonest, as if this tiny bit of confession on our part would somehow make any difference to the meat of the conversation.
From the start I have said that the chances he is legit are approaching zero. It seems as your assessment slides closer towards those who share my opinion, you get more and more aggressive about the distinction between simple statement of fraud and acknowledgement of a tiny chance of legitimacy.
My take is that, as the chance that we were right all along gets more obvious, you are becoming increasingly desperate to point out minor ways in which we were wrong, extending your arguments into the linguistic, the inane, and the philosophical.
Maybe you should just play the "in bed" game except you should add "but I might be wrong" to the end of every sentence you read. Rossi is a fraud 'but I might be wrong'. Rossi lies 'but I might be wrong'. Rossi is a tool 'but I might be wrong'. If you do this then maybe you will feel better. Otherwise, I really don't know how to help you.