So it's ok for Micon to say Patrick is running a scam but not for me to express my opinion on his accusation? What a very even playing field this forum is - not
I think you fail to appreciate the difference between an opinion unsupported by any argument and a reasoned argument. It's not okay to respond to a reasoned argument with a bare opinion and pretend that this in any way invalidates the argument.
Do you have any explanation for why, other than it being a scam, your husband is making so much money he can pay unbelievable interest rates yet doesn't have enough money to pay off his own ultra-high interest rate debt? Because the only reason the rest of us can think of is that he's scamming. If there's some other explanation, we don't know it. And all other such schemes in the past have turned out to be scams.
There's no point answering this.
But there's a point in pretending to?
You'll believe what you want to.
That's a good one! In case you run short of witty retorts, you may want to add "Says who? and "That's what you think!" to your repertoire.
Only wrote this in case my silence was construed as ''hiding something''.
I don't know if you're a shill or you've been duped, but there are arguments on the other side that you refuse to either acknowledge of respond to. You simply keep insisting on a position not only in the absence of evidence but against the weight of all evidence.
Do you know why your husband needs to borrow other people's money at outrageously high interest rates even though he supposedly has some sure fire way to turn massive profits? Or are you taking his word for it? All logic and reason suggests that someone who had a source of extraordinary wealth would make paying off usurious loans their top priority.
I find your behavior extremely bizarre. If you're attempting to vouch for your husband, you need to respond to the substance of the complaints.