Quote from: Maged on September 28, 2012, 02:27:46 AM

I have to say, day 3 of this has been pretty intense. Several times, each side had me pretty well conviced that they were in the right, so I'd consider this to be a pretty lively discussion that I am proud to have directed, despite its unfortunate beginings.

Quote from: EskimoBob on September 27, 2012, 07:37:29 AM

Quote from: Maged on September 27, 2012, 12:51:50 AM

Quote from: EskimoBob on September 26, 2012, 08:57:26 AM

Usagi piggipacked his absurd demands on a buy back of BMF shares and now is accusing of a scam. He is mad at me because I and many others are not happy what is happening in BMF and in other portfolios under his management.

This seems like a valid concern. Could you elaborate on why you feel like usagi should have bought back your BMF shares above market value? Also, what value per share, exactly, do you think you deserved to be offered if these "absurd demands" weren't included?

I actually never asked him to sell me the shares back. He made that offer to me, after I told him I am not happy with the current situation and he sold me the shares under the false representation of current situation in BMF.

If you read the log, I never really agreed to any of his rantings freely. He never mentioned, that his yelling of STFU, mixed with insults is some type of a contract. All I wanted now (because he made a unexpected offer) is get out of this crap called BMF and get my coin back.
When he started counting seconds, I asked, "do I need to repeat that Yes?". I had lost all the trust I in this scumbag and a liar, who has obvious memory problems (selective memory?). I wanted to sell my shares back to him and that is what my Yes stands for - Yes, I am transferring you the shares. Nothing less, nothing more.
I do not see contract here. I see just another rant of his, where he calls me with names and adds his "shut the fuck up..." or else.
I do not sell my silence, my support to some bullshit, I do not write my opinions about incompetent "portfolio managers" for coin and so on.

What are people's opinions of this specific statement? I want to hear what people think, regardless of your relation to the case. Yes, even you guys that are silently lurking in this thread.

If that back-and-forth can be construed as a contract, I think we're in trouble.