Citywire coverage of Rossi v. Darden

Ah, it was so tempting to resort to an obvious pun in the name of Citywire, but the blogivation would be so rude…. and the report was a decent attempt at news reporting, even though, as is common with mainstream media without more than a little to invest in investigation, it was shallow and a tad misleading.

Woodford tech holding settles battle with scientist

Heh! For starters, Rossi was not and is not a scientist. He has explicitly disavowed and ridiculed the scientific method. He is an inventor and entrpreneur, and, some claim, a practiced and experienced fraud. (This is a common error in mainstream media about Rossi. He does not claim to be a scientist and has no credentials as one. What is true is that some scientists have supported his claims, which is a huge and complex story.)

So I commented there, linking to the docket here for information on the case. Their news was more than a month old. Almost two months. Notice the lack of dates in the story…. ┬áMy review:

Citywire on Woodford and Rossi v. Darden

I created that page to hold my replies to comments on the story, instead of cluttering up the Citywire page, which was already starting to happen with the typical public comment process.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

See http://coldfusioncommunity.net/biography-abd-ul-rahman-lomax/

2 thoughts on “Citywire coverage of Rossi v. Darden”

  1. Abd – thank you for your contribution in the comments section of the Citywire article.
    I thought that you did a great job adding clarity and truth to that story. The IH guys send their regards and thanks as well.

    Keep up the great work!
    – Dewey

    1. Thanks, Dewey. It’s been a pleasure. I just saw something today, spectacular news, that I’ll be writing about, so … I can also say, Keep Up The Great Work!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield