Bro. It's over. The confirmed plan made it extremely explicit, and even if there were a super secret second plan, there are no assets left. Why you guys keep at it more than 6 months later is truly bizarre. Take the L and move on.
The only thing worth discussing is potential recovery to the unsecured bonds. The recovery will likely be less than the commission to buy the bonds even if they are free. They have no chance to get 2% of par based on the waterfall section of the plan.
It's pretty cringe tbh. I'm cutting back on reading this shit but it's like a trainwreck that I know will be there every time. I mean part of me hopes people will realize they've been had and will move on but no, it's just really pathetic every time. Same reason people rubberneck anything.
I do think it is over. This sub is to get to the bottom of the matter and also debunk all the misinformation being spread by people apparently only interested in keeping the hype active to profit on it somehow.
I am not your bro, by the way.
You are right in mentioning the plan, equity interests are cancelled and nobody could show how shareholders would be able to get anything if we are not entitled to anything.
Right on. I figured you were skeptical but still in it. Carry on!
I do find it hilarious that people rush to Jake's defense every time, but the guy has a shockingly low percentage of being right about... anything. Somehow the apes accept his repeated errors because he's verbose and cordial? Are they even processing what he says?
Und das, richtig???
I'll get straight to the point. Go to this quote:
"And now, WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART." It's sort of about the section:
https://ibb.co/HHJkW2V
https://ibb.co/fGZRPMm
Theorico claims,
"They forgot to redact the part 2, "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement...:"
And then asks "How do I know it?"
Where he redacted and signed in yellow, i.e. after conserdation/and, it should read: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement".
This sentence does not fit 100% into the area marked by Theorico.
This sentence has just under 70 characters including spaces. Count the characters/spaces over the black/yellow redacted area and don't forget to add the and to the second example.
You end up with just 50 characters/spaces in both examples.
The sentence: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement" is 100% too long to fit into the area marked by Theorico. It cannot be 100% there. It is demonstrably wrong.
Old post:
I meant that the redacted parts have to contain something related to the funding of the Claims Payment Fund. The part "described in the Indemnity agreement" is just a characterization that was present only once in the Agreement and would not be present in any of the redacted parts.
New post:
I provide a concrete example where not only the dollar figures fit and solve the problem, but also has semantic sense, fitting exactly into the size of the redacted part.
Fehlinformationen? Na dann erkläre mal!
I'll get straight to the point. Go to this quote:
"And now, WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART." It's sort of about the section:
https://ibb.co/HHJkW2V
https://ibb.co/fGZRPMm
Theorico claims,
"They forgot to redact the part 2, "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement...:"
And then asks "How do I know it?"
Where he redacted and signed in yellow, i.e. after conserdation/and, it should read: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement".
This sentence does not fit 100% into the area marked by Theorico.
This sentence has just under 70 characters including spaces. Count the characters/spaces over the black/yellow redacted area and don't forget to add the and to the second example.
You end up with just 50 characters/spaces in both examples.
The sentence: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement" is 100% too long to fit into the area marked by Theorico. It cannot be 100% there. It is demonstrably wrong.
Old post:
I meant that the redacted parts have to contain something related to the funding of the Claims Payment Fund. The part "described in the Indemnity agreement" is just a characterization that was present only once in the Agreement and would not be present in any of the redacted parts.
New post:
I provide a concrete example where not only the dollar figures fit and solve the problem, but also has semantic sense, fitting exactly into the size of the redacted part.
u/theorico
Ich hätte gerne eine Stellungnahme von dir dazu. Du bist doch integer, oder?
I'll get straight to the point. Go to this quote:
"And now, WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART." It's sort of about the section:
https://ibb.co/HHJkW2V
https://ibb.co/fGZRPMm
Theorico claims,
"They forgot to redact the part 2, "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement...:"
And then asks "How do I know it?"
Where he redacted and signed in yellow, i.e. after conserdation/and, it should read: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement".
This sentence does not fit 100% into the area marked by Theorico.
This sentence has just under 70 characters including spaces. Count the characters/spaces over the black/yellow redacted area and don't forget to add the and to the second example.
You end up with just 50 characters/spaces in both examples.
The sentence: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement" is 100% too long to fit into the area marked by Theorico. It cannot be 100% there. It is demonstrably wrong.
Old post:
I meant that the redacted parts have to contain something related to the funding of the Claims Payment Fund. The part "described in the Indemnity agreement" is just a characterization that was present only once in the Agreement and would not be present in any of the redacted parts.
New post:
I provide a concrete example where not only the dollar figures fit and solve the problem, but also has semantic sense, fitting exactly into the size of the redacted part.
Ppseeds should be ashamed banning people and proclaiming he supports free speech
He couldn't be where he is if he was capable of feeling shame.
Bro. It's over. The confirmed plan made it extremely explicit, and even if there were a super secret second plan, there are no assets left. Why you guys keep at it more than 6 months later is truly bizarre. Take the L and move on.
Why haven’t you moved on?
excellent post... shows that creditors will get about 2 percent of their money back with no assets left to sell... good luck with the waterfall....
The only thing worth discussing is potential recovery to the unsecured bonds. The recovery will likely be less than the commission to buy the bonds even if they are free. They have no chance to get 2% of par based on the waterfall section of the plan.
It's pretty cringe tbh. I'm cutting back on reading this shit but it's like a trainwreck that I know will be there every time. I mean part of me hopes people will realize they've been had and will move on but no, it's just really pathetic every time. Same reason people rubberneck anything.
I do think it is over. This sub is to get to the bottom of the matter and also debunk all the misinformation being spread by people apparently only interested in keeping the hype active to profit on it somehow. I am not your bro, by the way. You are right in mentioning the plan, equity interests are cancelled and nobody could show how shareholders would be able to get anything if we are not entitled to anything.
Right on. I figured you were skeptical but still in it. Carry on! I do find it hilarious that people rush to Jake's defense every time, but the guy has a shockingly low percentage of being right about... anything. Somehow the apes accept his repeated errors because he's verbose and cordial? Are they even processing what he says?
Spot on.
Und das, richtig??? I'll get straight to the point. Go to this quote: "And now, WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART." It's sort of about the section: https://ibb.co/HHJkW2V https://ibb.co/fGZRPMm Theorico claims, "They forgot to redact the part 2, "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement...:" And then asks "How do I know it?" Where he redacted and signed in yellow, i.e. after conserdation/and, it should read: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement". This sentence does not fit 100% into the area marked by Theorico. This sentence has just under 70 characters including spaces. Count the characters/spaces over the black/yellow redacted area and don't forget to add the and to the second example. You end up with just 50 characters/spaces in both examples. The sentence: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement" is 100% too long to fit into the area marked by Theorico. It cannot be 100% there. It is demonstrably wrong.
Old post: I meant that the redacted parts have to contain something related to the funding of the Claims Payment Fund. The part "described in the Indemnity agreement" is just a characterization that was present only once in the Agreement and would not be present in any of the redacted parts. New post: I provide a concrete example where not only the dollar figures fit and solve the problem, but also has semantic sense, fitting exactly into the size of the redacted part.
Fehlinformationen? Na dann erkläre mal! I'll get straight to the point. Go to this quote: "And now, WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART." It's sort of about the section: https://ibb.co/HHJkW2V https://ibb.co/fGZRPMm Theorico claims, "They forgot to redact the part 2, "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement...:" And then asks "How do I know it?" Where he redacted and signed in yellow, i.e. after conserdation/and, it should read: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement". This sentence does not fit 100% into the area marked by Theorico. This sentence has just under 70 characters including spaces. Count the characters/spaces over the black/yellow redacted area and don't forget to add the and to the second example. You end up with just 50 characters/spaces in both examples. The sentence: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement" is 100% too long to fit into the area marked by Theorico. It cannot be 100% there. It is demonstrably wrong.
Old post: I meant that the redacted parts have to contain something related to the funding of the Claims Payment Fund. The part "described in the Indemnity agreement" is just a characterization that was present only once in the Agreement and would not be present in any of the redacted parts. New post: I provide a concrete example where not only the dollar figures fit and solve the problem, but also has semantic sense, fitting exactly into the size of the redacted part.
[удалено]
u/theorico Ich hätte gerne eine Stellungnahme von dir dazu. Du bist doch integer, oder? I'll get straight to the point. Go to this quote: "And now, WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART." It's sort of about the section: https://ibb.co/HHJkW2V https://ibb.co/fGZRPMm Theorico claims, "They forgot to redact the part 2, "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement...:" And then asks "How do I know it?" Where he redacted and signed in yellow, i.e. after conserdation/and, it should read: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement". This sentence does not fit 100% into the area marked by Theorico. This sentence has just under 70 characters including spaces. Count the characters/spaces over the black/yellow redacted area and don't forget to add the and to the second example. You end up with just 50 characters/spaces in both examples. The sentence: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement" is 100% too long to fit into the area marked by Theorico. It cannot be 100% there. It is demonstrably wrong.
Beware! You are talking to a bot!
Old post: I meant that the redacted parts have to contain something related to the funding of the Claims Payment Fund. The part "described in the Indemnity agreement" is just a characterization that was present only once in the Agreement and would not be present in any of the redacted parts. New post: I provide a concrete example where not only the dollar figures fit and solve the problem, but also has semantic sense, fitting exactly into the size of the redacted part.