Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on November 28, 2012, 09:50:06 PM

Quote from: makomk on November 26, 2012, 07:49:50 PM

Apparently usagi's now selling off FPGAs bought using BMF funds on behalf of BMF shareholders and using the proceeds to repay the "liquidity loans" he took out for CPA, presumably because he offered to make himself personally liable for those loans but reckons he can tell the BMF shareholders to go screw themselves:

Quote from: usagi on November 26, 2012, 05:11:55 AM

First point.
1. Due to the closing of GLBSE, CPA has ceased to exist. All of our assets were on the GLBSE so we have no money and no operations and no income from operations.
2. Before GLBSE closed, BMF ordered a few FPGA and ASIC singles.
3. Both I myself, and CPA, owned 800 and change shares of BMF.
4. Therefore I have valid, personal claim on these singles, as does CPA.
5. Therefore this FPGA will be sold to pay off a loanholder (jborkl).
STATUS: I'm boxing and shipping it today. I will update this post with links to the receipt and tracking number later.

Second point.
1. I promised to be personally responsible for the CPA liquidity loans.

That's gotta be fraud, surely?

re-quoted for posterity.

If you really want a logical fallacy Augusto (as opposed to just to keep hanging off usagi's dick) then look at what usagi said there in the quote.

Look at point 3.
Then look at point 4 - which begins "therefore" - indicating a (supposed logical connection).

And there's a logical fallacy.

IF point 4 had said "Therefore I and CPA together have a valid claim on a percentage of those singles equivalent to the percentage that 800 is of outstanding shares" then it would have been better (not quite right - but getting there). Note that point 5 (and other posts from usagi - if it hasn't deleted them yet) make plain that it wasn't just a typo - but a stated intent to take the entire cash raised from the sale (and then use it on some mix of personal/CPA debt - which usagi appears not to ever appreciate are seperate).

For other examples of logical fallacy look (if you can still find them quoted - as most originals were deleted) at usagi's various statements over the past months that go along the lines of "I hold/control a majority of shares so I can do what I want" - making the error of believing that one factor in determining ability to act (number of shares in favour) totally negates all others (e.g. fiduciary duty, avoiding conflict of interest etc).