and, once again, you raise history
without providing context of that history
nor evidence that that history remains
a relevant going concern today.
to point, in reply, i invested a couple minutes
in explaining the history to newcomers,
inlined below for quick ref.
question being:
if you are truly interested in rational debate
why aren't you explaining the context of the history
which you raise
and proving evidence of current relevance?
if this were a formal televised debate on risk analysis of MIKP
how do you think critics would view your approach here?
imo, you're better than this.
and, honestly, i welcome you being better than this
and engaging in rational factual debates here.
can you rise to that challenge?
without adolescent deflection?
[[ btw, for newcomers here,
the VGTL adventure tenkay referred to,
without bothering to explain context (go figure...),
arose because the MIKP shell was booted to grays in 2012
and thus untradeable for a decade.
so mark moved his production assets
into another actively trading shell.
tenkay doesn't seem to deign to explain the logic involved.
but that says more about him than the dynamics in play. 😉 ]]
99.99% of all pinks are scams. Best to assume the other 0.01% are as well.