Originally by: Ji Sama

---

Its not, but i really think it has nothing to do with the debate! How ever, since Brock has been constantly on my back, i fealt forced into mentioning it to him, that i knew why he was on my back, and that his frustration had nothing to do with me or tmpi.

---

The more you post the more like Riethe you sound/act. Confusing statements, assets that are not assets, isk that is not but kind of generated, insinuated ad hominems, and plain refusal to accept facts as you've represented them.

The whole verbal sparring around the nature of people asking questions while avoiding the question(s)... problem here is that you really are acting consistently. Not as a capitalist but as a scammer.

In essence, if you've got something to say about Brock spit it out or stfu. Dancing it around it like you've done, for two posts, is insulting to those reading and only denigrates any respect you may have had. (If you ain't got the balls to stand up to your claims, why bothering dithering around?)

Originally by: Ji Sama

---

Brock frustration is based on the fact that you are:

1: an incompetent auditor
2: an incompetent ipo manager

it hurts you to see that i have succes and investor trust, while you have none.

The reason i am being the target of your flak is because you made a grave mistake in your audit of TMPI. Neglecting to see that we had a 5B pos in low sec etc. Amongst many other mistakes.

Brock i had respect for you, but when i feel down in my stomache, its just not there anymore, with that gone; i no longer feel obligated to answer your posts. So have a good one Brock. Good Luck out there.

---

I adjusted part of your post as I think you meant the line to specify Brock. I feel it also important to note:

Quote:

---

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

---

Your supposed lack of respect for Brock has spontaneously formed over the past several hours. What is clear that you are going to dismiss Brock's questions under the guise of any supposed mistakes on Brock's part. Considering that you are also attacking Brock's auditing of your IPO ("many other mistakes") itself seems to suggest that it is the answers to the questions that are being avoided.

That list of questions should be ready for you in a jiffy. Brock has them well thought out so why don't we let him ask them and leave the Q&A between as few parties as possible.

Okay cupcake?

Originally by: Ji Sama

---

emo rage quitting

---

Sadly, it appears some people can not take their own medicine. I shall miss your clever little trollings of everyone else. I'm saddened that once the focus was on you... ...

PS: Classic fail btw. "I'm leaving because [someone else](whatever)" is a truly classic scam/run/fail. Do try to remember this is not kindergarten.

Originally by: Ji Sama

---

Edited by: Ji Sama on 24/09/2009 02:44:22
Krathos we can play forum fu, or you can try to interpret what was written in the context it was written.
I know you can do this, so please do it.

I answered your question already; but since this has become a repeating session; i might aswell repeat the answer.

I did what i did beacuse i thought it was in the best interest of TMPI and its investors.

I did make an announcement in my IPO thread, i did make it clear, now 5 months after it has become a problem.
It was considered corp assets i simply rolled them over into the IPO!

---

There is no point in repeating questions as you have pointed. However, I was voicing my thoughts more than anything, hoping for a honest reason to do what you did, saying what you said is just evading the question, but I can not force you to give a real answer. The real answer would have said how that 50B fits into your business plan.

I don't buy the "I thought i was doing something good for the corp and my investors", mainly because I think you have more brains than that and because you clearly implied that you were going to take it back when you said that "if i dont take a piece of TMP Industries when it closes shop, i will effectively be out of 50B". That means that you reserve the right to do so, further you say that "when this whole thing is over, I and perhaps other key persons will be taking an unspecified share of TMP Industries". Don't talk about the meaning of share, it is irrelevant if you meant to take the money in shares or NAV, instead try to interpret what was written in the context it was written. (I know you can do this, so please do it). and admit that your intent was taking the billions back.

Originally by: Ji Sama

---

If i see a good deal, and i dont have the liquids to invest in it, i loan... thats easy...
so instead of gaining 0% extra profit i get perhaps 25% profit of which i have to pay 10% interest etc. and 0% > 15% imo...
Problem is with solid assets that when the time comes for a fast turn over you will loose profit.
I am trying to stop myself out of the habbit of cutting profit for a faster roll over...

---

Looks like you did it for the profit and you know basic maths, so all this giving 50B for free doesn't fit anywhere.

Then you change your mind and say that you were not going to take anything back, but only after a lot of pressure and a lot of posts evading to answer with a clear yes/no.

And then you say: "In the event of a withdrawal of assets, the people who have bought shares at the inflated price (as per the lecherito sale) will have to be compensated." so you state again that it is possible that withdrawal of assets occurs.

When you started this IPO (2009.04.28) you said that your "current monthly revenue is around 30 Billion and our estimated NAV is around 50 Billion". One month later (2009.05.21) you have another 50B worth of specially useless assets created just to inject them in the corp to be able to say that "what you also fail to realize is that the assets injected where mostly passive assets, they dont generate an income!".

Those were some of the facts, now my guess is that you tried a move, people saw it and then you changed your mo to damage control. I really believe you when you say that you're out of eve when closing TMPI, but I wonder if that you is your person or just your character. On the other hand it could be that you are honest and you are just incompetent, but I find it unlikely.