Good afternoon, Paul!
Matt and I have been having a wonderful exchange of ideas, but I'm really glad you stopped by. It may allow you to shed some light on a confusing topic.
Remember a few months back, when you told me that the chill disrupted all of Matt's big plans post-R/S? In fact, you told me that, had it not been for the split, all of those goals likely would have been accomplished.
That kind of has me scratching my noggin, because Matt was the only person who actually knew about the chill in December when he decided to do a R/S. No matter what, it is abundantly clear that he knew about the chill prior to announcing the R/S, as well as that awesome video statement when he outlined all his big plans post-split.
I, and many others, wonder why Matt wasn't able to ascertain that the effects of the chill would prevent his plans from coming to fruition. I mean, it's not as though CBAI was the first DTC chill. Remember - you highlighted MANY chills to me, to bolster your point that the DTC doesn't always give a reason.
So, with all of that information available, why is it that Matt was apparently so in the dark about what the chill actually meant? If we believe your explanation from a few months ago, Matt was apparently ignorant of these effects - because certainly he wouldn't make grandiose promises while knowing they couldn't be achieved, right?
I'd really like to know how Matt got taken by surprise, and failed to learn about the effects of the chill, prior to making all those statements in support of the R/S. Didn't ANYONE do ANY research, and suggest to him that he might not want to make promises like that? Didn't ANYONE consider that the chill might prevent a lot of the intended benefits?
If not, I consider that to be reckless. To get chilled, and apparently not even seek legal counsel on the potential ramifications in the event of a R/S, seems very unwise. Or maybe even lazy, I don't know.
Please help us understand how Matt got surprised in such a dramatic fashion. Thanks!
AI
