ConneXionONE Corp (CNNN)

[Bubble Tea]

BB,

I'm not tracking with you. What do you mean about not being able to have it both ways? My point in the last post was to correct a logical fallacy, nothing more, nothing less. The phrase "Sell at a loss" generally denotes selling an item below the actual production cost
, i.e.((selling price-production cost) < 0), which none of us know for a fact which is why I challenged it. I'm all about making sure that statements posted are factual.

Fred and yours definition of "Selling at a loss" incorporates all other costs as well such as rent, employee wages, attorney fees, etc, into the cost of the pumps, i.e. (selling price -(production costs+all other costs)) < 0). By your definition, yes, the pumps are sold at a loss but the problem is that no one uses your definition but you two. Therefore, it is misleading and in fact, libel. An analogy would be if you defined red as blue and then asked people the color of your red hat. They would respond red and then be speechless as you tell them it is not red because by your definition red looks like blue.

To expound on this, Fred did the same thing earlier when he said that AFT is a scam and Jim is a scammer. Then he defines scam not as Jim funneling all the money to himself, like a traditional scam, but rather, Jim takes all the money and uses it to operate his legitimate but failing business. Boy, if we used Fred's definition of scam the cops would be flooded with new cases because the majority of infant companies would be a scam.

Point is, please stick to commonly accepted definitions. If your point is to say that AFT operates at a loss, simply state that AFT operates at loss. Don't state that they sell their pumps at a loss. I hope this makes sense because I don't know how else to explain it.