Frank wrote on May 2
nd, 2018 at 1:50pm:
It's not at all out of context, and only a shill like you would attempt to claim that it is in your neverending quest to suck a bunch of SSG dick.
Ahem: It feels like you are arguing just to do that "I have to win this internet argument. Let me find a way to pick at this or stretch it to absurdity and then call it absurd." thing.
Let me lay it out for you:
You claim that Daybreak guy might have simply provided legal services to SSG, and therefor might have no other connection to SSG such as being an officer of the company or a majority shareholder.
I point out that you don't typically refer to your cpa as "your direct boss," because that's just a guy you paid to perform a simple service for you. You probably refer to you housecleaner as "your direct boss" though, so I can see your confusion. But this is a way you, well not you but someone with the common sense not to call their cpa their direct boss, might refer to the guy who ponied up the cash to allow you to keep your job by buying out the parts of your former company which were about to be shuttered.
Your head explodes as you attempt to whitewash and bury this incredible "what he did for us"/"how I refer to him" inconsistency which makes your theory valueless under your usual pile of pro-ssg bullshit.
It's really that simple, just like your mind.
Do I really need to point out all the factual fallacies in your statement? Here I'll just do one:
The guy listed in the MA Org filing is not the same guy that Severlin identified as his direct boss.
So the whole:
Frank wrote on May 2
nd, 2018 at 1:50pm:
Let me lay it out for you:
You claim that Daybreak guy might have simply provided legal services to SSG, and therefor might have no other connection to SSG such as being an officer of the company or a majority shareholder.
I point out that you don't typically refer to your cpa as "your direct boss," because that's just a guy you paid to perform a simple service for you. You probably refer to you housecleaner as "your direct boss" though, so I can see your confusion. .
The guy in the filing is Youseffi. The guy severlin named as is boss is Jack Emmert. Two different people. Seems like you are the one confused because you are talking like they are the same person.
My comment about needing more information was related to yourpresenting the MA Org fillings as proof of ownership. I, and several others you aren't calling shills or trying to attack, pointed out that's not really the case. It's not really all that difficult to understand the law, nor is the law unclear.
The comments by Severlin and the reporting by Suzie Ford that Daybreak acquired SSG are, in fact, more information. And are more informative of some control of the direction of the company. (Something I said in my original reply to you, but you conveniently ignore every time) If I had said one of those was not sufficient information (I didn't. I said the exact opposite), then you might have something. But I didn't. (Which is why you tried to take my quote and apply it in context of the Severlin comment. So you could gain a foothold in your argument)
I'm not trying to win any arguments, besides "Stop trying to change what I said to something else". All I said was that Organizational Filings can use 3rd parties who aren't owners or officers. That's a legal fact. Hence it does not imply ownership. If you can't understand that you were wrong to list that as proof of ownership, then it's you who are confused and can't handle losing an internet argument. But, then, you are Frank. That's kinda your thing.
Pages: 
Is this a "thing"? (Read 6255 times)
