Good evening, Zolis- Todd saying that he will u
Post# of 36563
(Total Views: 479)
Posted On: 02/03/2022 1:22:29 PM
Re: Zolis_onkel #34747
Good evening, Zolis-
Todd saying that he will update us when it is "possible," says nothing. For all we know, someone other than Todd may be responding to emails sent to him. I likewise do not know if he actively is answering phone calls. Perhaps earlier on, that was happening. (As an aside, I would note that hypothetically, there could be a criminal investigation underway, or even an imminent indictment (or more than one), and that circumstance certainly would qualify as "serious issues," and be ones issue that one would expect them to be "dealing with" and "working to overcome." At the same time, however, such "serious issues" are not going to lead to a profitable business venture. My point is, the responses to which you allude are, at best, vague and ambiguous; all the while, the bird quacks, waddles, and paddles.)
Clearly, either Joe or Todd could post right now, right here, or anywhere, publicly, that a) there is an investigation that continues; b) there is no [longer an] investigation; or, c), the company is fine/fair/about to collapse. The silence is tantamount to an ongoing lie, and no one at either company is disabusing any of us of that lie.
Bankrupt has more than one meaning, in common parlance. There is the legal use, in which a company (or person), because of the lack of sufficient liquid assets/cash flow, seeks a legal determination that the entity cannot continue business, paying bills, entering into contracts, etc., and therefore seeks either reorganization (of the company) or the organized and orderly dissolution of it, with the accompanying disbursement of assets to satisfy creditors, if only partially. There is also the "looser" use of the term, indicating that the person or company no longer has sufficient assets to meet financial obligations, without actually having filed in court for some protection from creditors. Either way, of course, the intent is to convey the belief that the person or company no longer is financially sound.
Finally, there is the more metaphysical use of the term, which is meant to communicate the lack of sound or well-intentioned judgment, as in one being "morally bankrupt." I think some on this board may harbor such an opinion regarding "He Who Must Not Be Named."
Todd saying that he will update us when it is "possible," says nothing. For all we know, someone other than Todd may be responding to emails sent to him. I likewise do not know if he actively is answering phone calls. Perhaps earlier on, that was happening. (As an aside, I would note that hypothetically, there could be a criminal investigation underway, or even an imminent indictment (or more than one), and that circumstance certainly would qualify as "serious issues," and be ones issue that one would expect them to be "dealing with" and "working to overcome." At the same time, however, such "serious issues" are not going to lead to a profitable business venture. My point is, the responses to which you allude are, at best, vague and ambiguous; all the while, the bird quacks, waddles, and paddles.)
Clearly, either Joe or Todd could post right now, right here, or anywhere, publicly, that a) there is an investigation that continues; b) there is no [longer an] investigation; or, c), the company is fine/fair/about to collapse. The silence is tantamount to an ongoing lie, and no one at either company is disabusing any of us of that lie.
Bankrupt has more than one meaning, in common parlance. There is the legal use, in which a company (or person), because of the lack of sufficient liquid assets/cash flow, seeks a legal determination that the entity cannot continue business, paying bills, entering into contracts, etc., and therefore seeks either reorganization (of the company) or the organized and orderly dissolution of it, with the accompanying disbursement of assets to satisfy creditors, if only partially. There is also the "looser" use of the term, indicating that the person or company no longer has sufficient assets to meet financial obligations, without actually having filed in court for some protection from creditors. Either way, of course, the intent is to convey the belief that the person or company no longer is financially sound.
Finally, there is the more metaphysical use of the term, which is meant to communicate the lack of sound or well-intentioned judgment, as in one being "morally bankrupt." I think some on this board may harbor such an opinion regarding "He Who Must Not Be Named."
(1)
(0)