On 21/02/2020 12:57 pm, Doctor Who wrote:
On 2/21/20 2:08 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/02/2020 10:44 am, Doctor Who wrote:
On 2/21/20 12:42 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20/02/2020 7:13 pm, Doctor Who wrote:
On 2/20/20 6:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 19/02/2020 7:27 pm, wrote:
Il giorno mercoledì 19 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha
scritto:
On 19/02/2020 3:23 am, wrote:
Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 14:16:14 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha
scritto:
On 18/02/2020 11:14 pm, wrote:
Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 12:28:05 UTC+1, Sylvia
Else ha scritto:
On 18/02/2020 7:18 pm, wrote:
Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 04:43:37 UTC+1, Sylvia
Else ha scritto:
On 18/02/2020 11:38 am, wrote:


10% of the patent of the PNN F432 (reactionless
drive) prototype for sale

http://www.asps.it/patportions.htm


This has scam written all over it.

Sylvia.


There are those who live by cheating billions for 50
years with human bases on the Moon and Mars

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonatha.../#7f0dc0022af5





Â*And the relevance of that is?


you understand the meaning of the motto "two weights two
measures" ?

No.


“to operate/use/adopt/have double standards“

from
https://www.parolaio.it/dizionario-i...si-due-misure/





Â* I really cannot follow your line of thought.

Is it that since other people have scammed, that makes scamming
OK?

Or that the fact that other such proposals have been scams, this
must not be a scam?

Perhaps it's that because a better propulsion system is desirable
(which I don't dispute), anything that proposes one is necessarily
real.

Sylvia.


The scams are decided on the merits of the facts. I say that a
reaction mass ejection propulsion system (rockets) that in 50 years
has failed to place a human outpost on the moon and that loses more
than 99% of the mass going and returning to the Moon (Apollo 11) is,
although it got there! A fraud. A scam is to hope that an evolution
is possible with a miracle is a scam. And the disastrous history of
the Shuttle taught nothing.

Rockets have limitations. That doesn't make them a fraud or a
scam. They do at least work.


We come to PNN because you are talking about the scandal of asking
for funds for your patent and development. Have you understood that
in www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm the three physicists Moretti, Fabri
and Pastore say that the principle of action and reaction is
violable
in electrodynamics? No youÂ* didn't understand it and they cheat too.

Also in that link, did you understand that a patent of mine filed in
1998 was granted in 2000? And that the patent said how to violate
Newton's third? No ! No you did not understand it: even those of the
Italian patent office were participating in the PNN scam!

The Italian patent office may have failed to grasp the
significance of what your patent was claiming. That doesn't mean
they will similarly fail next time, and it certainly does not
suggest they were participating in a scam.


Did you
understand that 2 Japanese people copied (bad)Â* months after in 1998
the filing of my patent, the basic idea of the same and they
republished it in their name?

So scammers can also be plagerists. Quelle surprise.

No you didn't understand! Now I'm going
to patent the PNN more enhanced than in this video
http://www.asps.it/qct05_ENG.mp4 However, I will patent whether or
not I find funding.

You don't know that you will succeed in getting the patent.

The F432 patent will be copied at the speed of
light because the real and not bogus conquest of space will go. I
will annoy you as long as you at least recognize that the only
functioning reactionless drive (the Emdrive does not work!)Â* is PNN
and can take the money from the nobel prize. I hope it is not a scam
for you to receive (perhaps!) the nobel prize too, and of course
ridicule and punish people like you who have always hindered me.

I repeat again: The scams are decided on the merits of the facts

E.Laureti

Why not allow device, and the experimental demonstration that it
works, to be examined by scientists of impeccable credentials,
under a non-disclosure agreement that does, however, allow them to
say whether or not they think the effect is real?

Sylvia.


Sylvia you have an invalid email address, that makes you a troll.


Run that line of reasoning past me again?

Sylvia.

there are strong motivations to deem you as a troll, because of your
line of thinking.

Rocketry cannot live past PNN.


That's all very well, but now you're trying to justify your original
conclusion via a different path. Your original claim was that having
an invalid email address makes me a troll. Whether or not I can be
determined to be a troll by some other route is neither here nor there.

Sylvia.

Wrong, there are both ways, your invalid email and your line of reasoning.

Oh and you look like a man, but Sylvia is a female name, impostors are
beaten to death.


OK, let's go back to the invalid email address. What is the line of
reasoning that leads from an invalid email address to the quality of
being a troll?

I mean, you do realise that if you put a valid email address on Usenet,
it will get spammed? Usenet dates from a gentler time before spam was a
thing, hence the display of an email address.

Sylvia.