[g-b-r]

I think I did explain more than enough

If you think that someone acting in the name of a company can act in his name there doesn't seem much to discuss.

[WendyTheWillow]

"Because I believe differently than you, there isn't much to discuss." is a terrible way to convince others of your belief.

You're presupposing your conclusion and seem completely closed to the idea that you may be wrong.

[g-b-r]

No, I explained my conclusion multiple times but you don't seem to have noticed it.

I'm not a lawyer, but the fact that a representative of a company can't manage the company's funds however he wants is:

* what I've always known

* obvious on the face of it

* apparently confirmed by quick searches of terms like misappropriation and embezzlement

You seem to be just trying to win a debate competition and I have zero interest in that; especially since there isn't someone around to judge it.

[WendyTheWillow]

That’s true, but it’s not what I said. It seems like you may need to reread what I wrote in order to respond to it, but then again it’s probably easier for you to pretend to misunderstand me than it is to actually address what I’ve written…

[g-b-r]

It's definitely you who has to read again the thread.

I did and I've gotten the nth confirmation that you're not really reading what I write, and maybe not really here for a discussion

[WendyTheWillow]

You've said over and over again how you don't want to talk about the subject, yet you keep replying. I'm just making sure people understand this isn't the strategy of someone who knows what they're talking about, and you're cooperating magnificently.

[g-b-r]

You keep replying without addressing what's been talked about.

I know you're not supposed to say that here, but at this point I can't imagine you're doing anything else than trolling.