Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders

[k9quaint]

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious.

Some quality argumentative skills being displayed right there.

Not my fault he used the int30h account and then got confused about which one he was logged in as. He didn't even last a day.

I am here. Waiting for the terms of the bet .

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

I have an account and I am sticking to it..  I am still waiting for the terms of your bet...

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

Are you going to keep repeating the same thing over and over ? Thats hilarious.

When you post as Endlessa, I change one word to int30h. When you post as int30h, I change it to Endlessa. You can drop the pretense.
Also thank you for bringing the UCC to our attention, we never would have tumbled to the forward contract provisions had it not been for your aggressive redirecting. So BFL will get a two pronged attack, one for fraudulent business practices and one for unilaterally cancelling a forward contract that they did not want to pay off.

And how can we forget:
Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

[k9quaint]

Here are also the Missouri UCC provisions:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c400.htm

You may wish to look up the following:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/4000020713.HTM

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/4000020715.HTM


I could find nothing here stating that a seller can be off the hook by a simple refund. Can you?

§ 2-105. Definitions:  Transferability;  "Future" Goods;  "Lot";  "Commercial Unit".

(1) Goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them may pass. Goods that are not both existing and identified are "future" goods. A purported present sale of future goods or of any interest therein operates as a contract to sell.

One party cannot simply cancel a forward contract because they don't want to pay anymore.

[drlukacs]

"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind.  Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.

so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):

400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

These refers to lease, not to contract of sale.

See the definitions here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTM

[k9quaint]

"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind.  Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.

so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):

400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

These refers to lease, not to contract of sale.

See the definitions here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTM

Yep. I tried to tell him that was not the relevant statute. But he blew his stack before anything could come of it.

[Endlessa]

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious.

Some quality argumentative skills being displayed right there.

Not my fault he used the int30h account and then got confused about which one he was logged in as. He didn't even last a day.

I am here. Waiting for the terms of the bet .

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

I have an account and I am sticking to it..  I am still waiting for the terms of your bet...

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

Are you going to keep repeating the same thing over and over ? Thats hilarious.

When you post as Endlessa, I change one word to int30h. When you post as int30h, I change it to Endlessa. You can drop the pretense.
Also thank you for bringing the UCC to our attention, we never would have tumbled to the forward contract provisions had it not been for your aggressive redirecting. So BFL will get a two pronged attack, one for fraudulent business practices and one for unilaterally cancelling a forward contract that they did not want to pay off.

And how can we forget:
Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

Ya ok, it's crazy that two people can observe your constantly changing point and the circle jerk you continually exhibit.  You should apply for a nobel, as your skills in deduction are not even rivaled by Sherlock Holmes.   I can pay a lawyer to do anything, doesn't mean he will win and it certainly won't stop the lawyer from taking my money.  Ok, since your just exercising your FUD creation skills, I don't think there is any form of point or substance in your conversation.  I did actually enjoy our conversation on UCC, but now your just being boring and childish.

[Endlessa]

"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind.  Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.

so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):

400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

These refers to lease, not to contract of sale.

See the definitions here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTM

awesome thanks. . .I was in a different view at the time. . it only showed the pieces. . .thanks for the context

can you show where it says they are not explicitly allowed to cancel the agreement?
I see where they can't "wrongfully" do it. . .but still haven't seen where it says they can't do it

I'll be looking through that version you linked.. it's much easier to read

[drlukacs]

awesome thanks. . .I was in a different view at the time. . it only showed the pieces. . .thanks for the context

can you show where it says they are not explicitly allowed to cancel the agreement?
I see where they can't "wrongfully" do it. . .but still haven't seen where it says they can't do it

I'll be looking through that version you linked.. it's much easier to read

I am glad that we are making some progress on this threat. I will get back with some authorities on this point. (In the meanwhile, I would ask everyone on the threat to refrain from ad hominem attacks, as they do not assist us in our discussion.)

[int03h]

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious.

Some quality argumentative skills being displayed right there.

Not my fault he used the int30h account and then got confused about which one he was logged in as. He didn't even last a day.

I am here. Waiting for the terms of the bet .

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

I have an account and I am sticking to it..  I am still waiting for the terms of your bet...

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

Are you going to keep repeating the same thing over and over ? Thats hilarious.

When you post as Endlessa, I change one word to int30h. When you post as int30h, I change it to Endlessa. You can drop the pretense.
Also thank you for bringing the UCC to our attention, we never would have tumbled to the forward contract provisions had it not been for your aggressive redirecting. So BFL will get a two pronged attack, one for fraudulent business practices and one for unilaterally cancelling a forward contract that they did not want to pay off.

And how can we forget:
Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

And you can drop the pretense that you have a brain.  We are not the same person.

[k9quaint]

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious.

Some quality argumentative skills being displayed right there.

Not my fault he used the int30h account and then got confused about which one he was logged in as. He didn't even last a day.

I am here. Waiting for the terms of the bet .

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

I have an account and I am sticking to it..  I am still waiting for the terms of your bet...

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

Are you going to keep repeating the same thing over and over ? Thats hilarious.

When you post as Endlessa, I change one word to int30h. When you post as int30h, I change it to Endlessa. You can drop the pretense.
Also thank you for bringing the UCC to our attention, we never would have tumbled to the forward contract provisions had it not been for your aggressive redirecting. So BFL will get a two pronged attack, one for fraudulent business practices and one for unilaterally cancelling a forward contract that they did not want to pay off.

And how can we forget:
Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it.

Ya ok, it's crazy that two people can observe your constantly changing point and the circle jerk you continually exhibit.  You should apply for a nobel, as your skills in deduction are not even rivaled by Sherlock Holmes.   I can pay a lawyer to do anything, doesn't mean he will win and it certainly won't stop the lawyer from taking my money.  Ok, since your just exercising your FUD creation skills, I don't think there is any form of point or substance in your conversation.  I did actually enjoy our conversation on UCC, but now your just being boring and childish.

Hello Mr Obvious Sockpuppet is Obvious. Next time you try to astro-turf you should remember to stay calm. When you get angry you make mistakes.
Now that BFL can't cancel orders without destroying themselves, what is their plan for silencing criticism?

Oh, and ROFL at your "lease section" of the UCC. Master of business you must be!

[k9quaint]

"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind.  Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.

so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):

400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

These refers to lease, not to contract of sale.

See the definitions here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTM

You should check the laws on unwinding forward/futures contracts.

[int03h]

"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind.  Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.

so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):

400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

These refers to lease, not to contract of sale.

See the definitions here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTM

You should check the laws on unwinding forward/futures contracts.

Show me a contract. Oh . .wait .. there isn't one.

[k9quaint]

"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind.  Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.

so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):

400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

These refers to lease, not to contract of sale.

See the definitions here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTM

You should check the laws on unwinding forward/futures contracts.

Show me a contract. Oh . .wait .. there isn't one.

When you post twice, I post twice. Enjoy! 

Hello Mr Obvious Sockpuppet is Obvious. Next time you try to astro-turf you should remember to stay calm. When you get angry you make mistakes.
Now that BFL can't cancel orders without destroying themselves, what is their plan for silencing criticism?

Oh, and ROFL at your "lease section" of the UCC. Master of business you must be!

[drlukacs]

can you show where it says they are not explicitly allowed to cancel the agreement?
I see where they can't "wrongfully" do it. . .but still haven't seen where it says they can't do it

UCC imposes a general obligation on both the seller and the buyer:

General obligations of parties.

400.2-301. The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract.

Next, the rights of the buyers is described as follows (the underlining is mine):

Buyer's remedies in general--buyer's security interest in rejected goods.

400.2-711. (1) Where the seller fails to make delivery or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance then with respect to any goods involved, and with respect to the whole if the breach goes to the whole contract (section 400.2-612), the buyer may cancel and whether or not he has done so may in addition to recovering so much of the price as has been paid

(a) "cover" and have damages under section 400.2-712 as to all the goods affected whether or not they have been identified to the contract; or

(b) recover damages for nondelivery as provided in this article (section 400.2-713).

(2) Where the seller fails to deliver or repudiates the buyer may also

(a) if the goods have been identified recover them as provided in this article (section 400.2-502); or

(b) in a proper case obtain specific performance or replevy the goods as provided in this article (section 400.2-716).

(3) On rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance a buyer has a security interest in goods in his possession or control for any payments made on their price and any expenses reasonably incurred in their inspection, receipt, transportation, care and custody and may hold such goods and resell them in like manner as an aggrieved seller (section 400.2-706).

In other words, the right for damages exists simply due to failure to make delivery or repudiation of the contract.

[Endlessa]

"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind.  Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.

so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):

400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

These refers to lease, not to contract of sale.

See the definitions here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTM

You should check the laws on unwinding forward/futures contracts.

Show me a contract. Oh . .wait .. there isn't one.

When you post twice, I post twice. Enjoy! 

Hello Mr Obvious Sockpuppet is Obvious. Next time you try to astro-turf you should remember to stay calm. When you get angry you make mistakes.
Now that BFL can't cancel orders without destroying themselves, what is their plan for silencing criticism?

Oh, and ROFL at your "lease section" of the UCC. Master of business you must be!

I never said I was completely correct, in fact, encouraged you to point out where I was wrong or looking into the wrong part of the code.  I actually appreciate drlukacs intelligent contributions. .. . .
so now instead of asshattery, I'm going to go read and try to figure out how all of it applies to the current situation.  I am actually interested in this. . .

[k9quaint]

"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind.  Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.

so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):

400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

These refers to lease, not to contract of sale.

See the definitions here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTM

You should check the laws on unwinding forward/futures contracts.

Show me a contract. Oh . .wait .. there isn't one.

When you post twice, I post twice. Enjoy! 

Hello Mr Obvious Sockpuppet is Obvious. Next time you try to astro-turf you should remember to stay calm. When you get angry you make mistakes.
Now that BFL can't cancel orders without destroying themselves, what is their plan for silencing criticism?

Oh, and ROFL at your "lease section" of the UCC. Master of business you must be!

I never said I was completely correct, in fact, encouraged you to point out where I was wrong or looking into the wrong part of the code.  I actually appreciate drlukacs intelligent contributions. .. . .
so now instead of asshattery, I'm going to go read and try to figure out how all of it applies to the current situation.  I am actually interested in this. . .

I posted the relevant sections. Fraud as defined by the Missouri Consumer Protection Act & failure to live up to a forward sale contract.
You switched to insulting me and accused me of redirecting and when I insulted your int30h account (who adds no value to the thread, you should drop him as an alias). 165 posts all by you in the same thread all in 2 days? We really must have struck a nerve.

[Endlessa]

can you show where it says they are not explicitly allowed to cancel the agreement?
I see where they can't "wrongfully" do it. . .but still haven't seen where it says they can't do it

UCC imposes a general obligation on both the seller and the buyer:

General obligations of parties.

400.2-301. The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract.

Next, the rights of the buyers is described as follows (the underlining is mine):

Buyer's remedies in general--buyer's security interest in rejected goods.

400.2-711. (1) Where the seller fails to make delivery or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance then with respect to any goods involved, and with respect to the whole if the breach goes to the whole contract (section 400.2-612), the buyer may cancel and whether or not he has done so may in addition to recovering so much of the price as has been paid

(a) "cover" and have damages under section 400.2-712 as to all the goods affected whether or not they have been identified to the contract; or

(b) recover damages for nondelivery as provided in this article (section 400.2-713).

(2) Where the seller fails to deliver or repudiates the buyer may also

(a) if the goods have been identified recover them as provided in this article (section 400.2-502); or

(b) in a proper case obtain specific performance or replevy the goods as provided in this article (section 400.2-716).

(3) On rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance a buyer has a security interest in goods in his possession or control for any payments made on their price and any expenses reasonably incurred in their inspection, receipt, transportation, care and custody and may hold such goods and resell them in like manner as an aggrieved seller (section 400.2-706).

In other words, the right for damages exists simply due to failure to make delivery or repudiation of the contract.

Dude you rock ty for jumping in. . . . and bringing information. . .let me spend a couple hours reading this stuff. . .and I'm searching for more information.  I totally would love to talk more about it   I really believe it's important to understand for me and everybody else that mines.

[Endlessa]

can you show where it says they are not explicitly allowed to cancel the agreement?
I see where they can't "wrongfully" do it. . .but still haven't seen where it says they can't do it

UCC imposes a general obligation on both the seller and the buyer:

General obligations of parties.

400.2-301. The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract.

Next, the rights of the buyers is described as follows (the underlining is mine):

Buyer's remedies in general--buyer's security interest in rejected goods.

400.2-711. (1) Where the seller fails to make delivery or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance then with respect to any goods involved, and with respect to the whole if the breach goes to the whole contract (section 400.2-612), the buyer may cancel and whether or not he has done so may in addition to recovering so much of the price as has been paid

(a) "cover" and have damages under section 400.2-712 as to all the goods affected whether or not they have been identified to the contract; or

(b) recover damages for nondelivery as provided in this article (section 400.2-713).

(2) Where the seller fails to deliver or repudiates the buyer may also

(a) if the goods have been identified recover them as provided in this article (section 400.2-502); or

(b) in a proper case obtain specific performance or replevy the goods as provided in this article (section 400.2-716).

(3) On rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance a buyer has a security interest in goods in his possession or control for any payments made on their price and any expenses reasonably incurred in their inspection, receipt, transportation, care and custody and may hold such goods and resell them in like manner as an aggrieved seller (section 400.2-706).

In other words, the right for damages exists simply due to failure to make delivery or repudiation of the contract.

Dude you rock ty for jumping in. . . . and bringing information. . .let me spend a couple hours reading this stuff. . .and I'm searching for more information.  I totally would love to talk more about it   I really believe it's important to understand for me and everybody else that mines.

I'm hoping to find a discussion board that I can post on to get some more legal minded people involved.  .and I can return with more opinions . . . .this forum (obviously) make it difficult to have an intelligent conversation about what the factual legal obligations of a company are. .. .like I said it's something that everybody who purchases mining products needs to know. . .

[drlukacs]

I'm hoping to find a discussion board that I can post on to get some more legal minded people involved.  .and I can return with more opinions . . . .this forum (obviously) make it difficult to have an intelligent conversation about what the factual legal obligations of a company are. .. .like I said it's something that everybody who purchases mining products needs to know. . .

Thanks for your compliments.

I believe there is a thread for legal discussion even on this forum, although there the focus might be more on taxation and regulatory matters, but it may be worth a try.

If you would like to propose a topic title and a place to post it, I can try to act as a moderator, to ensure that only civilized and constructive postings are allowed. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with a view, but it is distracts from the main issue when people start getting personal and engage in ad hominem attacks.

[k9quaint]

I'm hoping to find a discussion board that I can post on to get some more legal minded people involved.  .and I can return with more opinions . . . .this forum (obviously) make it difficult to have an intelligent conversation about what the factual legal obligations of a company are. .. .like I said it's something that everybody who purchases mining products needs to know. . .

Are you finally dropping all pretense of the int30h account?
Compare the following two posts, notice the bizarre use of periods and phraselets instead of sentences.
Here the Endlessa account is upset and lapses into some very strange grammar and formatting.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2271520#msg2271520
Here int30h is also upset and uses the same weird formatting and grammatical constructs:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2272747#msg2272747

80 of the last 83 posts by the Endlessa account are in this thread and in the last 24 hours.
58 of the last 58 posts (all of the non-newbie forum posts) by the int30h account are in this thread in the last 24 hours.

When he gets agitated, his mask slips. Like when I was making fun of int30h and the Endlessa account responded with the int30h style of insults to the taunting. OOPS.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2271207#msg2271207

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

[Endlessa]

I'm hoping to find a discussion board that I can post on to get some more legal minded people involved.  .and I can return with more opinions . . . .this forum (obviously) make it difficult to have an intelligent conversation about what the factual legal obligations of a company are. .. .like I said it's something that everybody who purchases mining products needs to know. . .

Are you finally dropping all pretense of the int30h account?
Compare the following two posts, notice the bizarre use of periods and phraselets instead of sentences.
Here the Endlessa account is upset and lapses into some very strange grammar and formatting.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2271520#msg2271520
Here int30h is also upset and uses the same weird formatting and grammatical constructs:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2272747#msg2272747

80 of the last 83 posts by the Endlessa account are in this thread and in the last 24 hours.
58 of the last 58 posts (all of the non-newbie forum posts) by the int30h account are in this thread in the last 24 hours.

When he gets agitated, his mask slips. Like when I was making fun of int30h and the Endlessa account responded with the int30h style of insults to the taunting. OOPS.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2271207#msg2271207

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

No I'm not him. . .but I'm am bored with you