I am not confused at all when it comes to Whooter. I understand that one or two things are happening here, 1) he used the word out of context and being the intellectual he is does not want to admit this or 2) he had a responsibility in brokering the deal between the TTI's.
I think you've hit on something here, Danny, although I would say "pseudo-intellectual."
In case #1 he doesn't even know what the term means, which indicates he has no business education or accumen and could not possibly run a business that buys and sells other businesses, as he claims to do for a living. In case #1, he's just a self-inflated phony trying to make others believe he is a VIP but failing miserably at it.
In case #2 he's lying wholesale about his role in the TTI which makes him a lying phony.
Thanks for poining out these two obvious conclusions. It's what I've been saying all along, only when you say it, Whooter accepts it, thus proving my point - he's a complete fake.
FWIW, the deal never happened and he would have no continuing duty as a broker anyway. So he could openly discuss everything about it without penalty of any sort. There's no confidentiality required for "The Deal That Never Was."
More Aliases, too?
Short story: TheWho = industry marketing drone / general asshole
The Who works in marketing and research in Newton Mass. His clients are unidentified, however they are suspected by his postings (who he defends) to be Aspen, or possibly NATSAP (or both). He admitted to having a fiduciary duty involving HLA (or it's acquisition) and is rumored to also go by the alias of David Sullivan. ( mergers-aquisitions@yahoo.com )
No DJ, I think you may be wrong on your comment he can discuss past associations concerning acquisitions. He is under non-disclosure agreements, I'm sure. Also if they are still his customer they would really not appreciate him doing this. His fiduciary responsibilities are clearer now then before, if in fact he does work for a company in Newton, Ma. doing M&R, he would very much be held bound to ethical responsibilities concerning fiduciary directions. His
team are the
point men in any
acquisition, so they are privy to costs, he just does not necessarily have any legal responsibility, though he still could get fired (blackballed) for breach of ethical standards.
This is all I am going to say about this subject because even though it goes to credibility of character, which I think could be argued forever, I don't have the
bottom line evidence that you folks here are accusing him of....(yet).
Until that time I will go with his daughter was in a program, he likes the outcome of what his daughter learned so therefore wants to back programs, maybe also because of his excitement he went to work for a company that wants a true believer to help stick up for them and their programs. Big deal, at some point we have to deal with a different opinion.
Now one could say something similar about Ursus, look at the amount of time he is on here, the information he is able to get, the contacts he has..ect. Ursus has cultivated a entire data base of information against the TTI.
I would suspect that Ursus is either disabled, retired, being compensated by someone or thing or independently wealthy (trust fund baby). We don't think of this because he is speaking the language of fornits, which btw I have no problem with. I just don't see this inquiry going on with him.
DJ I have said this before there is always going to be a ying and yang, black and white, polar opposits....ect.
He happens to carry the opposite here.
I also don't have a problem with you holding him to the truth, Whooter has mislead folks with his earlier posts, why he does not just acknowledge this "I don't know". But keep the fire on DJ just maybe keep it at a lower flame, I don't know.
