Wytte? Not.

On LENR Forum, Wyttenbach demonstrates his clarity of memory and thought. Not.

(Update: Wyttenbach was banned for two days because of this.)

(Update again: Wyttenbach unbanned, based on allegedly poor English comprehension. This is a reason for lifting a relatively harmless two-day ban? If poor comprehension leads to offensive behavior, why is this then a reason to avoid a minor slap on the wrist, of no long-term consequence, when the behavior involved actually goes back a year or so.)

First, THHnew wrote:

A thought-provoking and detailed comment from Abd on some of the legal issues that raises wider questions on the hows and whys here. I guess ones that we will never have resolved, but still fascinating.

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…y-different/#comment-3181

You need to attune yourself to Abd’d prolix style, more so than me by a factor of 5, and stick with it for the eventual reward. Abd’s commentary here on the legal machinations seems to me to show the best of his abilities as we see them.

THH actually linked to his own comment, but, hey, it’s the thought that counts. Thanks, THH.

I spent an entire day writing the post. So of course it is “prolix”! It can be read in a tiny fraction of the time it took to write. If one follows the links, to verify claims, it will take longer, but that’s the breaks. It takes work to understand life. It doesn’t happen by itself.

So Wyttenbach replied:

@THH: ABD committed that he was payed by APCO for earlier work. So we can without doubt say, that he is an APCO guy. Why do you regularly try to attract people to an APCO/IH payed forum?

Perhaps Wyttenbach believes Sifferkoll’s ravings are gospel. Siffer once claimed something similar, though Wytte has taken it even further.

First of all, I have not been “paid” by anyone related to Rossi v. Darden. I have not been “paid” to write. This is the history of payments related to my writing and LENR:

In 2013, at ICCF-18, I was given $200 to help cover my expenses, and later I was given about $150 more by others. It cost me on the order of $700 to attend that conference. (I got a press pass, I took the bus, and shared a room.) In 2015, I was offered a substantial sum (I still have about half of it), in gratitude for my writing (on Wikipedia, as it happened). The donor is involved with LENR — it was the Anthropocene Institute, I was allowed to mention that — but there was no condition placed on it other than a possible review, to be written by me, of a certain LENR-related web site (private review, not something to be published). That money was donated to Infusion Institute, Inc. (III).

This has nothing to do with APCO or Industrial Heat. III generally supports my work. This blog’s operational expenses are paid from it. I have not been personally paid for writing. I am supported for my own living expenses by social security and some residual income from my electronics design business.

Last year, when I started to compile case files on the newvortex mailing list, in that filespace, and to write about the case on LENR Forum, an attorney offered to reimburse me for download costs. That burden has also been relieved by Eric Walker, LF moderator, and Eric and I cooperate by sharing files. Maybe a month ago, another LENR personality (not affiliated with Industrial Heat), gave a donation to III, again to support expenses; by this time I was announcing plans to travel to Florida. Getting there on the bus will be relatively cheap, the big expense will probably be a hotel.

I have never received any financial support from Industrial Heat, my only personal contact has been some brief friendly conversation with the obvious and very public person, an investor in and contractor for IH, and I have had zero contact with APCO. I have not asked for such support from them — so far — and it has not been offered or suggested.

I will be crowd-funding my trip to Florida to cover the trial, if there is going to be a trial, and at that point, it may become impossible to distinguish sources as being IH-related or not. However, this will all be III funding, and I would not accept any conditions on donations, such as writing favorably or unfavorably about any entity or person.

In fact, a good number of those who have donated have been people I have criticized, and this often happened to me in the past: some people actually appreciate critique, it is a sign of intelligence and wisdom — and of people who are not stuck in their own stuffed shirts.

Wytte went on:

ABD has no clue about legal stuff: He predicted 8 out of 8 Rossi suits will be dismissed the first month… Such statements can only be made by a payed FUD’er or by an ignorant.

I learned something long ago that is missed by too many of us: the fastest way to learn is to make mistakes. When I’m right, I learn very little, and, in fact, the habit that can form (i.e., an idea that I’m right) can strongly inhibit learning. I was very aware, when I predicted the outcomes of the IH Motion to Dismiss, on each count, that those predictions could entirely fail. In fact, predicting that an MTD will fail is the safe bet: they usually do. It is a relatively cheap Hail Mary pass, because it can bypass all the very expensive Discovery process. So my prediction (what was it?) was bucking the odds.

The term is not “suits,” it is “complaints.” If all the complaints are dismissed, the suit is dismissed. First of all, what did I predict and where?

To find this wasn’t easy. LF research tools suck (which is common on fora and blogs.) The source documents give a time domain to search:

06/02/2016 0017-0_darden_motion_to_dismiss MOTION TO DISMISS 1 (Complaint)
06/17/2016 0018-0_rossi_memorandum_opposing_mtd
06/27/2016 0019-0_darden_reply_supporting_mtd
07/19/2016  0024-0_order_on_mtd ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Counts II, V, VII, and VIII are DISMISSED without prejudice. All other counts remain intact

Looking back, then, I noticed this comment from me, in August, 2015, where I opined that — it appeared — the Rossi Effect was “likely” real. I was dealing then, with the very limited information we had. Was I wrong? Is it wrong to note the obvious implications of evidence? I now think that conclusion was incorrect, but I now have far more information. I’m satisfied with that post, so far.

This later response to Wyttenbach, deconstructing a wild claim from him, shows his habits of stating impressions as if they were fact. His impressions, i.e., probably what he remembered as fact, were clearly false.

and here is my prediction, June 26, 2016:

My present understanding and prediction: Cherokee will be dropped as a defendant. All Counts will be dropped except for Count 1. The court may allow Rossi to amend the complaint to allege estoppel, as to the issue of the missing signature (and agreement to the start date) (Estoppel applies if parties behaved as if there was an agreement, even if it was somehow defective or missing.)

The defendant has until Monday to respond to this, as I understand the matter, then the court has some time to rule on the Motion to Dismiss.

A quick summary here would be that Wytte lied. However, it would be more accurate to say that he is deluded, he believes his memory rather than verifying it. It’s common. Memory is easily flawed, and it is normal to remember our impressions and reactions rather than the actual evidence of the senses.

I did not predict 8/8 dismissals. I predicted 7/8, and the actual dismissals were 4/8. So my prediction was inaccurate, but I was still more correct than not. And then, does this demonstrate lack of knowledge? (“Abd has no clue about legal stuff.”)

What was Planet Rossi predicting at that time?

Lawyers are like doctors, often: they are averse to predictions, because outcomes vary. However, a good lawyer, like a good doctor, if asked and allowed to hedge, will estimate probabilities, based on experience. Actual results can vary a lot with the court.

In business and at law, as with health, we need to know probabilities. A lawsuit might cost a million dollars to prosecute (and much more, if we are particularly stubborn — or the grievance causes major and ongoing harm and so we stick it out — or our attorneys are willing to work on contingency). What is the potential recovery and how likely is it? This is where Annesser fell, I’m sure, flat on his face, unless Rossi completely disregarded his advice and Annesser felt constrained to continue to represent him. Rossi had a full-potential-recovery here of, approaching, $300 million, the probability of success was quite small, knowing the facts, and, if Rossi was sane (that’s in doubt), he knew the facts. He knew, for example, it’s now quite clear, that the Second Amendment, crucial to his case, was invalid, and he never took the necessary legal steps to bypass that. Under those conditions, the entire lawsuit fails, with high probability. The fraud claim, that would increase recovery from $89 million, was hopeless from the beginning, for many clear legal reasons, but Altonoga decided to allow, based on misinformation or her inferences from misinformation, that IH was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cherokee Investment Partners, and thus it was legitimate to include Cherokee as a defendant, and decided to ignore the lack of clear assertions of that as fact. She ignored the clear evidence that the “GPT” was too late, and with no assertion of a written agreement to a postponed date, giving Rossi a bit more benefit of the doubt than I expected. (She essentially invented a possible argument, as I recall). She thought that maybe “Six Cylinder Unit” was merely another name for “E-cat,” an idea that could have been resolve in one minute in court. Maybe saving $15 million.

A lawyer fully informed as of March, 2016, would have advised Rossi that the expected return was low or even negative, not worth the costs, and would have pointed out the heavy consequences of filing that suit. And a competent and responsible attorney would have taken steps to verify Rossi’s claims. I have seen a client, however, instruct his attorneys not to talk to the defendant. Bad sign. I have seen this cost the client a lot of money, something like thirty times the cost of an available settlement, which, after the first appearance in court resulted in the complaint being squashed, is what we ended up settling on — he finally let the lawyer talk to me. And, hey, I got to write a motion to quash service of a summons, and to appear as a lawyer for my close friend, with whom I was living. I guess I was John Doe.

In the end, we may still see the Rossi suit being totally dismissed, on grounds that were asserted in the Motion to Dismiss, but merely, now, fully backed with evidence — and a lack of contrary evidence other than mere conclusory assertions by Rossi.

That thread, with my prediction, was shut down by an LF moderator, in yet another demonstration of incompetence. Dewey and Sifferkoll were having at it, the moderator’s excuse. However, the moderator shut down an active and useful community discussion because of two alleged offenders, instead of (1) moving offensive posts to the Playground or other thread where they would be on-topic and/or (2) specifically warning the offenders and possibly short-blocking — or banning — them.

At that point, it may have been a majority opinion among LF staff that Rossi v. Darden discussions were to be discouraged, and efforts were made to suppress it. Open discussions were shut down. And I could go on and on about that.

I started a new thread to discuss that shutdown:

Thread with the most fact-based posts on the Forum shut down from flame warring

I look back, now, over those posts and see comments, by many others, and a few from myself, that contain errors, misinterpretations of evidence, and especially, from Planet Rossi, confident claims that are now in tatters, as Dewey was predicting. The Forum was full of them. They have become more and more rare, as people realize what a flimsy tree limb they were standing on. However, a few “die-hards” soldier on.

Here, today, we have Wyttenbach still holding to a position that can be summarized as “I’m right, and those who disagree with me are idiots or paid FUDders.” He is very much like Sifferkoll; with Sifferkoll we know the psychiatric diagnosis.

Wyttenbach has a PhD in math (and that is his real name — and Sifferkoll is also openly Torkel Nyberg, not anonymous). Wyttenbach is not a troll, as such. He is merely deranged, generating useless discussion, essentially foaming at the mouth. The effect can be similar to trolling, and maybe he was trolling here, it’s unclear.

Now, if he has some overlooked facts to point out, or analysis that has been missed, or questions to ask, he’s welcome here. Nobody has been banned from CFC, and only spammers have posts unceremoniously deleted. (I “spam” them and later do a quick review before fully deleting them. So if someone makes a good-faith comment and it doesn’t show, ping me! If I spam a post, the poster is not banned, they can post again. It could have been unintentionally “spammed.” And lots of spammers are brief: “Great blog you have! I’ve bookmarked it.” Some are even funny.)


Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. LF administration is clicking it up a notch. Or at least one moderator is.

Eric Walker wrote:

Wyttenbach wrote:

@THH: ABD committed that he was payed by APCO for earlier work. So we can without doubt say, that he is an APCO guy. Why do you regularly try to attract people to an APCO/IH payed forum?

I consider this kind of unsubstantiated claim to be unabashed trolling. We know that Abd’s Infusion Institute has received very modest help, and I’m unclear on the specifics. But this is no different than funding being received by any nonprofit. Unless you can document a link to APCO (and not via one of Sifferkoll’s conspiracy theories), this is pure speculation on your part, delivered as fact. This kind of behavior is one of several things that make your presence here wearisome.

One of the characteristics of the syndrome that may be involved is a failure to recognize social necessities. (I have a milder social disorder, ADHD, that can have a similar effect, generally not so drastic.) Walker laid out a clear path, if Wytte cared to follow it. He didn’t.

Wyttenbach wrote:

Eric Walker : I’m citing ABD! Just read his older posts. He confirmed this (taking APCO money) for a different opinion making story (not LENR).

Please read my post carefully as you do with other posts too. I have written for former work! .. not the current AR story.

May be you know it better?

No link. Treading on thin ice.

THHuxleynew wrote:

One thing any educated observer in this saga now understands is the necessity to read sources carefully and not accept some summarisers comment, which (in the case of Annesser for example) is often quite different from the original fact.

If this matter is important to Wyttenbach no doubt he will be able to provide a precise reference (URL and position on page). We can then all evaluate for ourselves whether the facts substantiate Wyttenbach’s view that Abd is not worth reading.

Eric Walker wrote:

Please directly quote the earlier posts from Abd where he purportedly confirms receiving money from APCO.

Yeah. After all, I forget stuff and maybe there is a check somewhere in that pile on my desk. At this point, Wytte has ample warning. THH has cautioned him against misleading quotation. So what does he do?

Wyttenbach wrote:

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

I received $4.25 million dollars from APCO to promote advanced voting systems.

Dafuq? Who wrote that? Pardon me while I froth at the mouth for a while. That’s more money than I’ve seen in my entire life, quite a bit more. I wish someone was supporting advanced voting systems with a tenth as much. Well, Wyttenbach included a link. Unfortunately! (I was hoping that I’d actually received it and merely misplaced the check. Of course, it would have been stale-dated. By a huge measure. I was working on advanced voting systems up to maybe eight years ago.)

Eric Walker wrote:

The full quote from Abd:

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

It is ‘somewhat interesting” to notice who upvotes this crap. I received $4.25 million dollars from APCO to promote advanced voting systems. I wish. In fact, I have received nothing to promote anything.

Wyttenbach banned for two days for trolling (or behavior indistinguishable from trolling). The next time will probably be for two weeks. We don’t have electrons or pixels here for this kind of nonsense. It’s a waste of everyone’s time to be detained with it.

Wyttenbach may actually have been trolling, poking for response, considering it fun. He will laugh at this response, I assume.

My comment about APCO was in response to Sifferkoll, so my comment began with:

“Abdulla Apco FUD sub” wrote:

I have not received any funds related to Industrial Heat or Rossi v. Darden

I notice that you do not mention Apco here … This is somewhat interesting since you have been spending so many words downplaying them … dont you think?

I also did not mention Donald Trump, or ISIS. Interesting!!!. Can we conclude from this that Trump and ISIS are in cahoots, and that I’m protecting both of them by not mentioning them?

I conclude from what came down that Wyttenbach had that quote in mind. Did he remember the context? How did he remember it? Now, if he did not want to be blocked, he’d simply have written, “Oh, I’d forgotten what Abd wrote next. Never mind.” But that is against the Rule Book for PhD Trolls.

  1. Never admit error.
  2. Never give sources.
  3. If you do, see Rule 1.

I mentioned upvotes. They are still there. Sifferkoll’s comment, containing only a ridiculous speculation, was upvoted by Walker, Wyttenbach and Keieueue.

Keieueue and Wyttenbach are now banned, Keieueue is permabanned (it’s not easy to tell, but that’s what I recall) Walker hasn’t posted for about five months. Sifferkoll showed up for a while recently, was quickly banned for two weeks, as I recall. He has posted since. Characteristic: useless arguments that go nowhere. Looking back at old posts, I see comment after comment that later revealed evidence shows were completely wrong.

Trolls never admit mistakes.

When I see an error in an old post, I will often, if it is accessible, edit it. I can’t do that on LF, because of the permaban.

I just noticed that H-G Branzell was unbanned. January 16, I had pointed out his ban as inexplicable. It was an example of the arbitrariness and lack of transparency of LF administration, back then. Good to see Alan and Eric fixing that. I hope HGB’s participation will be useful.

While it is true that the owner of a blog can do whatever he (or she) pleases, it is also true that when the blog is represented as a community activity, as LF does represent, there is an obligation created for fairness and a seeking of community consensus.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

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

7 thoughts on “Wytte? Not.”

  1. Re:-
    “Eric seems to be running on a model that if it was “a sincere misunderstanding,” it would be “excusable.”

    It seems someone else might be running on the same model.
    Hot off the press, as we speak,.. (or type,..)


    Y.G.
    May 7, 2017 at 9:28 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Did you ever say to IH that Johnson Matthey was the owner of JM Products?

    Andrea Rossi
    May 7, 2017 at 1:52 PM
    Y.G.:
    I never said or wrote or published such a stupidity. Never.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    So there we are. Mr Rossi never said any such thing. It was all just a bit of a misunderstanding.

    I think Y.G, probably should have asked Andrea if he ever told IH that Johnson Matthey was NOT the owner of JMP. Before the one year test that is, not afterwards.

    Actually, in keeping with Mr Rossi’s MO I think he would have been careful not to say or write such a thing. But I also believe he would have dropped little hints via a number of people which he well knew would end up getting to IH, and then made a very poor and ambiguous effort to negate the rumor when he knew it had been established. For instance, when Darden asked for the contact details of Johnson Matthey in the UK, why did he not tell Darden that there was no point in visiting Johnson Matthey because they were not involved in any way with either the one year test or JM Products, and that JM Products was a shell company set up and owned, either directly or indirectly by Mr Rossi.

    All just “a sincere misunderstanding,” apparently.
    I wonder if the good folks on Planet Rossi can swallow that line without choking?

    1. Yes, working out exactly how to decode Rossi statements is a skill we are learning. I have to say that as with any new language you admire its internal logic and expressiveness. Working out how Rossi would say something, as here, needs a good level of Rossi-speak comprehension.

      Although he tends not to lie overtly he does cross over that border quite often where to avoid overt lying it is necessary to misconstrue his English. He is not a native English speaker, so such misconstruction can always be claimed justified. I wonder if he finds English an easier language to work in than Italian.

    2. Rossi’s JONP puppets never ask inconvenient questions. Rather, they ask questions that Rossi wants to answer. And here he is, talking about a core issue in the case, attempting to create a public fog of deception. He is technically correct. Johnson Matthey was never an owner of “JMP,” and that is technically correct. Did he ever claim that JM was the owner of that Florida corporation? No. He rather obviously claimed, however, that they were behind JMC/JMP, but the “owner” was acting on behalf of JM. He started out, apparently, with quite explicit claims, perhaps they were his fantasies stated as fact, which Rossi has frequently done, apparently. The documents show that JM was considered the ultimate party in interest, and that the independence of this party was crucial. Surely a reputable, established company would not pay for non-existent power! What came out as factual, beyond reasonable doubt, was very, very different from what he had represented. Johnson was present for talk about JM, and simply kept his mouth shut. Bass believed that the plant was one of the JM plants, hence his questions. IH did not pull “Johnson Matthey” out of thin air, if they drafted the Terms Sheet, and it’s possible that the first draft was from Rossi, that is unclear from what I’ve seen. Rossi seems to have been careful to not contradict that idea, for sure, but to create a translation to JMC as “our customer,” that was plausible, to hide the JM involvement, and none of this makes sense absent a claim of JM as the real customer.

      And then, as operational fact, “our customer,” who supposedly was creating conditions for Rossi, was Rossi himself, or Leonardo Corporation, with Johnson as President, and the OFAC declaration was clearly false, and intended to support the JM fabrication. There is no other reason to assert “U.K. entity” as the secret owner. It was an Italian friend of Rossi, clearly supporting a Rossi sham (possibly without knowing the fraud involved). The probability that “JM” — which came from Rossi — was not intended to hint “Johnson Matthey” is very low. However, then Rossi created a cover story, that JMP means “products made from Johnson-Matthey platinum sponge.” (They took “chemical” out of the name because, RossiSays — and it might be true — landlords did not want to rent to a chemical company. And so, they shamelessly admit that they did not disclose the true business — according to the claims, chemical processing — to landlords. These are people who manipulate names to create false impressions so that they can do what they want.

    1. Yeah, right. If we take the “mistake” as sincere, we then are led to the fact that Wyttenbach quoted me out of context, because the original immediately contradicted what he quoted. There are examples of this in Rossi v. Darden. Cassarino says “I don’t know,” in response to an Annesser question but then subsequent questions bring out that he does know, quite well enough, and other evidence confirms that Rossi knew (this is about the Second Amendment being “cancelled,” that was Rossi’s term). So what does Annesser quote? He “doesn’t know.” Yeah, the rest is there for anyone who looks it up, but people who talk and write like this have developed skill at misdirection. Someone can look at the source, expecting to see what they just read. With that expectation, they see confirmation. It works, sometimes.

      In fact, as I show above, Wyttenbach was following that original conversation, he upvoted the Sifferkoll comment. That thread was almost immediately shut down by Barty, because of Sifferkoll and Weaver flame-warring. Sifferkoll elsewhere claimed that I’d confirmed being paid, but that was not based on that comment.

      What this shows was that, if he was sincere, he was being radically incautious. This is not a matter of his being poor at English, his English is not that poor.

      Again:

      “It is ‘somewhat interesting” to notice who upvotes this crap. I received $4.25 million dollars from APCO to promote advanced voting systems. I wish. In fact, I have received nothing to promote anything.

      To quote the first statement about $4.25 million and miss that it is immediately negated by “I wish,” — which could be misunderstood by someone unfamiliar with colloquial English — but then totally contradicted by “I have received nothing to promote anything” — shows terminal carelessness, and this is, in fact, characteristic of Wytte, and creates confusion and forum clutter. FUD, in a word.

      And this is also in complete disregard of the utter implausibility of someone being paid $4.25 million to promote something, someone who is well-known in the community to be relatively low-income, and this theme is oft-repeated: people who are well-known as long-term supporters of LENR, such as Jed, are accused of being paid shills for IH/APCO. It’s totally preposterous.

      So what I wonder is who leaned on Eric.

      If nobody leaned on him, it still appears that the lifting of the ban was based on off-Forum discussions. Wytte has not apologized.

      Eric seems to be running on a model that if it was “a sincere misunderstanding,” it would be “excusable.” But people who “sincerely misunderstand” can cause enormous damage to community conversations. Wyttenbach’s “misunderstanding” matched the long-term Sifferkoll trope, Rossi’s claims on JONP, and many Planet Rossi figures. He did not merely misunderstand, there were four statements in a row in that comment of mine. The first one literally stated $4.25 million from APCO. But the next one damaged that, and this was a place where poor English could be an excuse. The next two explicitly contradicted it. The third had syntax that might have confused someone, I suppose.

      But the fourth was: “I have never talked with anyone connected to APCO, as far as I know.”

      Eric is naive. I’d have insisted that Wytte clearly apologize, as his first post, for the mistake and for the implications that he drew from it “without doubt” and his poking of THH over it, claiming, based on it, that CFC is an “APCO/IH paid forum” — and implying that THH is doing something reprehensible by point to something considered useful here. I have been receiving extensive compliments, even from Rossi supporters, for the resources here.

      This was just a two-day ban. On WikiMedia Foundation wikis, if blocked for two days, I probably would not bother to appeal, it’s not worth the time. (They are far more predictable, normally, and procedures are clear even if on occasion factions get away with wiki-murder.) I assume from Eric’s comment that Wytte somehow directly emailed him, or Wytte registered a sock to be able to communicate on the Forum with Eric (which I don’t consider a problem if it is not used to disrespect the administrative decision). I have more than one sock on LF, not used to post, but to allow accumulation of what has been Read, and I can and have communicated privately with consenting users — or users I expect to consent.

      Maybe Eric did require that, and Wytte just hasn’t done it yet. It is possible that if he pops up his head, he’ll be razzed, but if he apologizes, he will actually end up looking better. The sky will not fall if we say “I was wrong, I’m sorry.” Basic advice: don’t make excuses, they weaken apologies. Take responsibility. Fully.

  2. Wyttenbach later quoted you: “I received $4.25 million dollars from APCO to promote advanced voting systems.”

    I gather this was taken out of context, but never mind that. I am incensed by this revelation. Your behavior was inappropriate, inasmuch as you did give me a taste of this $4.25 million. As I wrote there:

    “Abd’s message is deeply troubling. It is unfair to me. For the record, I would like to say that I am willing to work for either side, I.H. or Rossi — or both at the same time! — at a significant discount. I’ll take $4.1 million.”

    1. Sorry, I forgot to tell you. Besides, I lost the check. Have you worked on advanced voting systems? LENR may be a $1 trillion per year issue. Voting systems is a heavily neglected topic that might have a value approaching $10 trillion per year. So $4.25 million, cheap at twice the price. Pocket change.

      Thanks for all your help, and if I find the check, I’ll send you some support. It has to be here somewhere! Maybe this will finally motivate me to clean up this office. I dunno. Only $4.25 million? Maybe tomorrow, if I have a little time.

      When I wrote that, which I now vaguely recall, I think I first wrote a smaller figure. And then I made it larger, because these idiots would quote it more believably if it was smaller. I now see I should have made it $4.25 billion. And why not? Really, it is still only 0.4% of the yearly cost for delay in LENR, or 0.04% with the voting systems issue.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield