Oh no, we understand you perfectly. You said, with

Oh no, we understand you perfectly. You said, with no foundation of fact, that the MFO deal was "very likely with his own son's new firm." Then when a trusted poster told you that Leo specifically told him that that was not the case, nevertheless you persisted in posting claims that his son was somehow involved.

And then when this is pointed out, you say we misunderstand.

Tell me, please, how else are we supposed to interpret these posts claiming that the son is involved, and imputing dishonesty on the part of the CEO?

Quote:

---

I cringed on the first MFO deal that was very likely with his own son's new firm that was just formed last year.

Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5346709#ixzz5fM3NrAYL

I'm not so sure about that. It would be the firm that his son is a part of, not necessarily his son himself. 

Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5346820#ixzz5fM3dByxb

Because the shoe fits. His son may not have his name on it but it doesn't mean the firm that he works for/with did.

Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=5347185#ixzz5fM3nJ4iC

---