ladajo wrote: Kite, please stop being so cantakerous. It is obvious that you continue to bait folks to spoon feed you there own research on the topic, as much as it is obvious (and self admitted) that you do not do it own your own.
It is down right trolling for fish to behave the way you are with this.
If "fish" equal "fact" then you are correct. Folks keep crowing about how big a "fish" they caught and when I ask to see it, they say "well, you'll have to take my word for it, but its a doozy!"
ladajo wrote: Ross has clearly lied about certain things,
Show me PLEASE.
ladajo wrote: as well as misrepresented many more.
Ok, what?
ladajo wrote: Pathologically so. Just because you personally haven't seen him steal the cookie, does not me he did not do it. It just means you haven't bothered at all to seek objective evidence either way.
I am not an
advocate either way. I am the jury. I say, "show me".
ladajo wrote: If you ever took the time to look at what Rossi himself has said and done over the last year and a half, you would see CLEAR and DIRECT lies, later discounted by him, with further misrepresentations and deceptive behaviours. But, alas, I know that you will not go look for yourself, because you can't be bothered, and that would also take the fun out of baiting others with word spin and legalise, just like Rossi does.
ABSOLUTELY true. Folks are making what they imply are "statements of fact" about this person. I've simply demanded that if they want me to accept their statement as "fact" they need to show me the evidence of it. So far, none. I'm not convinced either way. I actually kind of lean toward the "insanity" explanation, but...
ladajo wrote:
Rossi directly documented lies:
To wit: I am making, selling, and there are E-Cats operating in the US.
And you know this is a lie how?
ladajo wrote: To wit: I am not making nor have sold, or are operating any Ecats in the US.
Please whow me where HE said this?
ladajo wrote: To wit: I have a factory(s) in production in the US.
To wit: I have no operating factory(s) in the US.
Where did HE say this?
ladajo wrote: To wit: I am using only my own money.
To wit: I am funded by purchases.
~A year between statements, no?
ladajo wrote: To wit: I am no-longer in charge of the company, there is a trust I must answer to0.
To wit: It is my company, and I get to pick who does what, when and where.
This may be a contradiction. More details please. I.e., as of yet, All I have is your word that he said these things with the implication that he was talking about the same thing. Data please? ---- Interesting, but unproven.
ladajo wrote:
To Wit: I have sold and shipped 14 ( or whatever) 1MW plants.
To wit: I have not sold any 1MW plants.
Again, show me the statements and timing thereof.
ladajo wrote: To wit: I have sold one, now that they have seen it operate succesfully, and it is 'gone' and they have taken delivery.
To wit: It is not gone, but only sold, as it is not ready. So it remains in my test facility.
To wit: They have not bought it yet until we finish with gaskets and instruments.
Are you familiar with the term "FoB" Free on Board? It is where a company company delivers a product to a specified site (USUALLY but not always a cargo conveyance) and at the instant in time it is considered "delivered" even if no where NEAR the final usage point. You can in fact "deliver a unit to your own factory floor and consider it "gone".
Do you know what the contract delivery terms were? Do you know what the "return terms" were? Were there "rework" etc. clauses? I can see a plausible scenario where the contract was to "deliver" the unit for demonstration to the factory floor and gotten a signed receipt after said demonstration which makes it "sold and delivered and gone". Before the buyer physically removes it, the buyer does additional inspection and says, wait a minute, this isn't per contract..., I "return it" to you. Thereafter, the seller works to remedy the issues because it is "not ready". All TYPICAL business activity which probably happens a thousand times a week in the US. None of it involves "lies", just standard
business language.
ladajo wrote: To wit: We are partnered with National Instruments
To wit: We are not partnered with NI
To wit: National Instruments, "We did the same with Rossi, as we do with any potential customer. Reviewed needs, offer product suggestions"
Jeez dude, can you say "language barrier". Even we Americans have difficulty with our own language. Might not "partner"
be used in lieu of "working together with, in a close business relationship"? When called on it, he corrects the statement as not "partnered" per-se. This is "proof" of nothing except he is using the English language, seemingly as a SECOND language.
ladajo wrote: To wit: NASA will test and verify Ecat, I will pay them to do the testing.
To wit: NASA must pay me ridiculous $$ for the honor to test Ecat
Forward looking statement prior to firm contractual meeting of the minds. As a Navy employee, I know that at times, Navy personel will suggest to, or even tell, a contractor that he is sure he can get the money to do a task and then can't. One part of the Navy makes a liar out of another. But it is the NAVY that is the liar in that case. The contractor is innocent. If in casual conversation the contractor says "I will be doing this for the Navy", he is speaking the truth as far as he knows.
I can't imagine that NASA is all THAT different from the Navy in this regard.
ladajo wrote: To wit: UoB works with me.
To wit: UoB, "We do not work with Rossi"
Short hand for "Several scientists at UoB work with me. The University says that the University is NOT, as a University, working with him.
ladajo wrote: To wit: I must travel back and forth, and when in Italy I spend time working with UoB
To wit: UoB, "We have no aggreement, and do not work with Rossi. He was to pay us to test the Ecat for him. He has not paid."
"Spends time working with" can means something as simple as "trying to get them to do contracted work before I can pay them".
ladajo wrote:
To wit: Rossi, "I will pay for UoB to test Ecat with the sale of the 1MW plant money."
To wit: UoB, "We would be happy to test Ecat for Rossi, but we will make public any findings"
This statement came later (IIRC) than the general I will pay UoB... This may have been the road block that he "spends time working with UoB" to overcome. Seems it didn't happen. Oh well.
ladajo wrote: To wit: Rossi, "anyone who wants to test Ecat must pay me for it."
To wit: Dick Smith, "I'll pay you $1 million if it works in a repeat of a test you have done"
To wit: Rossi, "I don't want your money, and you can't test it"
Rossi says, if you want to test an E-Cat you must pay me for "it". Again the wonderful pronoun. "IT". Is "it" the
E-Cat or the
Testing? My understanding was "the E-Cat". Why? Because I suspect there are all sorts of confidentiality clauses in the purchase contract. Purchase of the E-Cat might have limitations on what "results" could be "published".
From what I recall of the issue, Dick Smith did not
appear to be acting in good faith. Simple prerequisites for accepting the offer were touted by the Smithites as "proof" of a lie.
I'm pretty sure that if I were working round the clock on a product and someone dangled a tantelizing fruit like $1M (even Austrailian), I would be interested, but I would check the bona-fides of the offer before I interrupted my busy schedule. Such bona-fides were requested by the Greek group. Seems Rossi had had enough of "demos" and said "you buy it, you can test it. If it doesn't work, send it back". Smith didn't accept either reasonable path to acceptance of the offer. Is that Rossi or Smith that is the liar here?
ladajo wrote: To wit: Rossi, "The 1MW is operating in the North East USA, and soon anyone of the qualified public can go see it."
To wit: Rossi, "I get to pick who will see the 1MW"
Seems that it would be Rossi who picks is the "qualified" public. Did you REALLY expect anything else? Why would you?
ladajo wrote:
To wit: Rossi, "The 1MW is a military project, no one can go see it. But I have sold more 1MWs, and soon I will pick special people to go see them operating"
"Which 1MW" plant? "The" 1MW plant. Pronouns are an ENDLESS source of confusion, honest AND willful, in any language.
And overall, timing? If the unit was REALLY sold to the military, it is completely understandable that after saying that only "qualified" hand picked individuals could see it, the new owners said, "Nope, no one". Where is the lie? Misunderstanding / confusion explains it.
ladajo wrote: And many many more.
So far, zero proofs for many examples. If you WANT him to be a liar, the above tripe will allow you to convince yourself. That doesn't make any of them
proof of lying.
ladajo wrote: Rossi is FULL-O-SHYTE.
YOU ARE WRONG. He is a proven liar and he has and is ADAPTING his lies and misrepresentations as the situation warrants.
So far, all I've seen "proof" of is that you seem to have made a decision that is destructive to another person and then looked for any evidence to excuse your decision.
He MAY be a liar. I have no need to decide anything about this yet. I will decide when I have seen a "FACT" or other circumstances force me to make such a decision. As yet, no FACT and no need.
ladajo wrote: Anyone want to go peek in the window of the Bologna warehouse? I bet the 1MW is still sitting there. But I bet the rented 500KW generator is gone.
Good suggestion.
ladajo wrote: Rossi now has a clear predictable pattern. Delay and obfuscate. Delay and Obfuscate. Outrageous claim, attached to a name dropping. Alter story, alter story, blame others, alter story, blames others. Delay and obfuscate, delay and obfuscate....wash rinse, repeat continually.
Yup, you've
decided and defined your decision clearly. Be happy with your decision, but please label it as such. It is your OPINION that he is a liar.