I get the picture re David, Brandi Hawbaker, and underage girls. It's bad and impossible to defend. I understand that Mason could have cut ties with David and chose not to do so. What else is there is to say?

This just became the most interesting thing in the thread to me.

Considered and confirmed.

Ther's also the lack of anything substantial to discuss about the topic so far.

Irregardless, I beleive someone that write with not only bad gramar but bad spelling two is not that uncommon nowadays

Where in the World Is Bad Grammar Waldo? Or was it Carmen Sandiego?

Inflammable.

Hi Rococo:

I would like to see his proof as well, especially since there is nothing in the purchase agreement like this.

Best wishes,
Mason

groan

.

The future looks gloomy.

TWHRIC

The new owners aren't posting here at all so there's nothing else to do itt. Andrii hasn't made a post on 2p2 since Aug 8

They have met the future and it is us.

The new owners are merely personas. Someone insidious financed the purchase from the shadows through the "new owners".

Hi Rococo:

I think you'll want to look at a new thread I just started which can be found here:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...times-1794373/

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason,

I'm not interested in taking sides on this issue, but maybe I can help get at the real answer. I can think of six possibilities re the provision that PTLou snipped in a screenshot:

1) It's in the Purchase Agreement and you are lying.
2) It's in an ancillary agreement. You aren't lying, but you are choosing your words carefully.
3) The provision was in a draft of the Purchase Agreement, but it was omitted from the final document. PTLou either (i) mistakenly believes the provision was in the final document; or (ii) knows the provision was omitted from the final document and is lying.
4) The provision was in a draft of an ancillary agreement, but it was omitted from the final document. PTLou either (i) mistakenly believes the provision was in the final document; or (ii) knows the provision was omitted from the final document and is lying.
5) PTLou was provided with a fraudulent document.
6) PTLou is just making **** up.

I assume your position is that scenario 5) or 6) is correct. Is that right?

PTLou, which scenario do you contend is correct?

Hi Rococo:

#6, and I don't take this seriously.

Mason

Rococo, cmon dude, you’re smarter than this. It was an obvious joke

I thought it was funny, and surprisingly, from PTLou at that.....

Ill take that as compliment... I guess???

+1. might have been the funniest thing in this train wreck of a thread.

LOL. **** me. I thought it was serious because Mason was taking it so seriously. Please laugh at me.

Well at least we've moved on from the grammar nuts anyway...

They are working 12 hours a day to improve the site. No time for posting.

Aaaaannnnddd it's locked.