Lenr-forum administration just split the Rossi v. Darden developments thread, locking the original thread, preventing replies to comments there, creating a new thread, giving the reason,“For better clarity.”
When it was pointed out that having two sets of comments instead of one, on the same topic, wasn’t more clear, that Lenr-forum threads are already split into pages in chronological order,
Of course, Alan Smith has long opined that there was too much discussion of Rossi v. Darden on LF. The history here: A new subforum was created for IH and Rossi, so that users could generically suppress notification of new topics if they didn’t want to follow them. Not bad, not a problem. Then Alan locked threads that were active, and, as well, there is no legitimate reason to lock topics just because they are old, because someone may have an appropriate reply to a comment much later. No, locking is done to suppress discussion, and when it is done by moderators who have their own ideas of what is important, and what is not, their own agenda, it can be a problem. I had been pointing this out …
As well, if users are watching a thread, splitting like this shuts them down, until they notice and watch the new thread. This was really a Bad Idea, unless the goal is to suppress discussion.
The issue is locking, not the creation of the new topic, which would be relatively harmless. There were active posts, there, recent, and now response to those posts is much more inconvenient. As pointed out, the new topic doesn’t make anything clearer, because LF already chops topics into display pages, it merely makes access a little more complicated. Splitting was an excuse for something. For what? I think it is fairly obvious. I started that developments thread, and it was one of the most-read pages on LF. Definitely it was much of site traffic. So looking at site activity, my profile was displayed, and I’m told that LF admin is “furious” with me. So, an appearance could be, they wanted to shut that down. Barty, who did this, is basically a nice guy, but part of what is essentially a Star Chamber, where discussion can be radically imbalanced.
I started the thread so that developments in the case could go into one thread, rather than being spread out in many.
Of course Alan likes it, he may have requested it, knowing that if he did it, it might look bad. Or not, but what is shown here is a lack of understanding of how community discussion groups work, and a level of unclarity about the mission of lenr-forum. Any thread with substantial participation becomes too long to read in toto, this is a very poor way to create coherent content. Rather, more sophisticated tools would need to be added, or different software used. Or splitting that is much more work. Rather, LF is first and foremost a discussion site. Such a site can be used to develop content, by creating links to posts, and that can be done elsewhere, like here, and that is part of what I’ve been doing here. And, of course, there is an attempt — that will fail — to suppress that by disallowing incoming links from CFC. Everything that they are doing to attempt to control community behavior backfires, because they have no idea how to lead instead of just pushing buttons. I’ve seen the end of this many times, over the thirty years I’ve been involved with internet conferencing. The end is that the founders become disgusted with how much work it is, or how frustrating, and sites commonly go down, content is lost, etc.
If, instead, site administration positions itself as a servant of the community, and if site structure facilitates the formation of consensus, administration becomes far easier. The WikiMedia Foundation understood some of this, but also lost it in certain ways, they were naive about community consensus in large groups. Without facilitating structure, it easily becomes an adhocracy that is easy to corrupt.
If the goal was to organize by year, this was 12 days too early, and the years would have been used rather than Part 1 and Part 2. Further, developments occur by year, but comments can come any time, later. So why force comments that are replies to earlier events or earlier comments into a new thread? Instead of fighting with CFC — suppressing incoming links from here was blatantly hostile, as well as useless — they could cooperate. The tools of WordPress could be used here to create organizing pages, and, speaking for site administration here, we would assign necessary admin privileges to good-faith users. At present, any page here with links to LF must have the warning notice about 403 errors, but those will be easy to remove if they become unnecessary.
Now, indeed, back to the topic.
Document 90 published at the Miami Court Pacermonitor
I see this kind of reference also on Rossi’s blog. Documents are not actually published on Pacermonitor. For reference, the URL for Rossi v. Darden. Pacermonitor is a for-profit web site that resells access to documents from PACER. See the pricing page. (They also provide other services, as you can see, and I don’t know about them.) They provide free access to the docket itself, which then invites people, essentially, to view the documents, which you can do for $5 per document. Pacermonitor checks the docket, generally, five times a week, at midnight, but the docket that they display is only the most recent files. I use Pacermonitor routinely to make sure I haven’t missed something.
Anyone can sign up for PACER itself. There is no monthly fee. As with Pacermonitor, you will need to provide a credit card, and billing is once every three months. The fee is 10 cents per page, with a limit of 30 pages. I.e,. the most that will be charged for ordinary documents is $3. Some reports available do not have a page cap, but users are warned. When billing time comes, if the charges are less than $15, they are waived. So you can download 149 pages every three months for free. (For those curious, I paid a bit over $50 for the third quarter of 2016.)
Unless you sign up for a pacermonitor account, and pay the charges described on the pricing page, you cannot view documents on Pacermonitor. It’s not useful to point people to that page, where all they will see is the docket entry, which, for the subject file is
|90|| motion Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Mon 8:38 PM
Joint MOTION TO DISMISS78 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim,,,,,, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM as to Counts III, IV, and V by James A. Bass, Fulvio Fabiani, J.M. Products, Inc., Henry Johnson, United States Quantum Leap, LLC. Responses due by 1/3/2017 (Leon de la Barra, Francisco)
On the other hand, I had 0090.0_3rd_party_MTD here quickly, usually I beat Pacermonitor if I remember to check in the evening. If I wait until the morning, they will normally have the docket entry up before I see i, unless it’s the weekend, because if an attorney files a document in the evening on Friday, the clerk, who apparently works on Saturdays, doesn’t put it on the docket until the next morning, so Pacermonitor doesn’t have it until Monday night.
Except for a few early boilerplate documents, I have all case documents indexed on Rossi v Darden case files. The Docket (missing the latest files, I will only occasionally update it, because the case page actually covers everything important) is here: 0000-0_docket_up_to_12-06-2016.
Then there are other resources here for study of the case. Merge documents have been created that compile Complaint paragraphs and Answer paragraphs, so that they can directly be compared. What, after all, is a party “denying”? Paragraph numbers don’t tell much of a story! These are at IH Answer Merge with Rossi Claims and Rossi Answer Merge with IH Claims. I assume I will also do this with the 3rd party Answers, as I assume will be happening next year. It could take a month or more, because of the delay the MTD introduces.
Like the case files page, those pages are intended to be neutral, no opinion. However, pages have been described, and if some opinion has crept in, comment is welcome on that post, for the purpose of corrections, and restoring neutrality — which is generally measured by consensus — is a correction.
As to opinions, we have them as well, both those of the blogger (right now that’s only me, but that will change), and of others, sometimes collected here. This page, you are reading is a “page,” not a “post.” This will be linked from my blog post on this page: 3rd Party Motion to Dismiss
(383.29 kB, downloaded 151 times, last: )
Heh! Used to be there was some courtesy to sources. That was my very own filename! All my hard work, copied and republished without any credit! Barty, it was not necessary to copy the file there, unless…. you want to increase site traffic for LF, and decrease site traffic here. And unless you want to avoid linking to CFC, which would not surprise me; since I’m told that LF staff is “furious” with me, and …. hmmm. One of the last posts in the old thread was a page that recommended the Rossi Answer Merge mentioned above. Gotta get that out of sight as soon as possible? Not if you care about your readers! However, angry moderators don’t care about readers…. Barty, you know how all this conflict could end, easily. Furious about me for what? If I put something here that is inappropriate, the first step would be to tell me, and suggest changes. That’s how normal human beings treat each other, in the real world. If there is enough hostility that direct contact — which hasn’t been attempted — wouldn’t work, then a mediator can be found. But that requires R E S P E C T.
I recommend it.
Quite the contrary Wyttenbone – the nervous one lives in Miami. His troubles are increasing and those associated with him are probably thinking about saving their own skin.
Most be a particularly excellent mushroom season on P.R – enjoy.
Eric, While that may be true up to a certain point, I don’t think it will be missed by the court that 3rd Party Defendants are arguing it does not matter if what IH alleges, and provides evidence of, is true. And from my reading that is exactly what they are arguing.
Fortunately, we here have a much simpler job in sorting this out than the courts. Even the remaining Rossi supporters have said if Rossi/Johnson are proven to have lied about JMP’s ownership and operations, than they would abandon Rossi. And few could read this latest and come away convinced JMP was a legitimate company formed in the UK, affiliated with Johnson Matthey, with a real product and a need for the steam….well maybe Wytennbach could.
The third party asked for dismissal of a suit brought on by IH. IH provided some evidence as to their fraud case. The answer to that suit was all legal wrangling where simple evidence provided could have nailed the dismissal. I.E. IH stated that JMP was a fraudulent company. If they responded “here is documents showing production or connection with a parent company” that would clearly dismiss the fraud charge. They did nothing to provide the judge to dismiss the charge other than “we deny”. My personal opinion is that they had no evidence.
My opinion only. :huh:
It is important to understand that document 90 is not a third party answer–it is a third party motion to dismiss. This is not the time or place for the third party defendants to admit or deny allegations.
I agree this was a motion to dismiss.
That means it IS time to provide evidence so the judge can “judge”! A motion to dismiss will only succeed if the defendant gives the judge enough evidence that the suit is either legally invalid (legal argument citing other precedents) or factual based upon evidence. This motion contained only “it does not matter” which will not win the motion at all and some legal argument as to what constitutes fraud. They could have easily had some dismissals by providing small but clear evidence such as JM Products was a “real” company. Or that Bass actually DID some work.
Nothing was presented and this motion will almost certainly fail. (In my admittedly uneducated in law opinion)
To be continued in (2)