QS Energy Inc (QSEP)

[Zizek]

Well I think you can interpret what you're doing however you like, but I think under any reasonable standard, two people exchanging their logic and reasoning in a public forum, while testing the strength or weakness of particular propositions meets the standard of a 'debate'. But that's semantics.

I don't think that my request was out of place or put undue burdens on you. You define Jones Walker as a company who specializes in M&A's pertaining to midstream oil companies. I just want to know your reasons for defining them in that way, as opposed to as a multifaceted legal firm who also specializes in IPR work. I did my homework on this question. I found a single instance where Jones Walker DID offer legal advice in an energy company merger (details here: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/10/superior-complete.html). But beyond this instance, I found no other examples. My question was for you to clarify your reasoning for your argument, not to do my homework. After all, on other issues (China, companies going PR silent), you were more than forthcoming to offer deeper insight into how you reached your conclusions and provide examples which would enrich your claim.

You might consider your posts as 'for entertainment purposes only,' and I get that. I love argumentation and debate, so I'm willing to devote time and energy in the pursuit of testing hypotheses - that's entertainment itself for me. And I agree much of your argument seems plausible, but this piece doesn't fit as nicely. If you're unwilling to push the discussion in this direction, that's fine. I'm sure Sox and Sano want talk about dilution or something. But you're obviously a smart dude who has done his research, and I'd be curious what your research discovered which was absent in my own, which makes you skeptical of the official reasons for Dominique/Jones Walker's relationship with STWA.