Topic: Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett - page 12. (Read 39288 times)

Where did you obtained the graph?

I don't have the slightest idea either.

Ok, so then the 11+12+17 = 40% is the 50%? I'm confused.

Yes it should. But his graph don't add up to 100%. Feel free to interpret it however you want.

I don't readily comprehend this graph. For one, shouldn't it add to 100% or something?

The Kraken Fund was about 50% invested in PPT (Patrick Harnett's own passthrough he was insuring and apparently bought himself out of with Kraken Fund).

When he defaulted, he paid 50% of balances. I'll assume it's for the debt he bought himself out with the fund (and took back on default) and that other assets are the one he defaulted on:


He did break a few promises, including that he would cover any loss and misrepresenting where the funds would go. For those asking why would someone borrow to invest and offer 100% coverage on loss? Offering to cover losses to borrow would imply he does not have the liquid funds to operate but that he has assets he can liquidate should the need arise. It allows operation with borrowed capital without the immediate need to depart with other assets such as precious metals, house, stocks, etc. He did not cover the losses.

You don't see how this totally undermines your argument in the MP/PH situation?

One of the foundations of your argument is that neither PH/MP knew PH was exposed to pirate.  Doesn't his behaviour with Kraken suggest that MAYBE he DID know he was exposed to pirate but chose to lie about it to raise more funds?

The basis of a common mistake is common knowledge - which is where your argument has always fallen down.  PH KNEW where he was invested, his depositors/investors had to take his word about it.  As he had more information AND made assertions which his depositors/investors had to take his word for, there's absolutely no basis on which a common mistake could be concluded.

Otherwise, by your twisted logic, EVERY defaulter could use your argument - after all, neither they or the lender believed they would be unable to repay (or they wouldn't have entered the agreement).  Hence they shared a "common mistake" of believing that repayment would be possible, hence they share fault.

All your examples about cherries, sunk ships etc share one element in common that is NOT common to the PH/MP deal - symmetry of information.  The information in PH's deals (with MP and also Kraken) was asymmetrical - PH KNEW what his investments were, the other parties didn't.  Accordingly, any error in assertions made by PH about those investments HAS to be his fault if wrong - as he was the only one in a position to make any judgment about them.  Common mistake has nothing to do with one party making an assertion that they can verify but the other can't.  It has to do with an assumption made by both parties where neither has significantly more information than the other.

A good example of what WOULD be common mistake would be losses caused by the failure of GLBSE - where no mention of that (or responsibility in the event of its collapse) had ever been made in negotiation or in contract.  But where one party has made an assertion that they could reasonably be expected to have significantly more information about than the other party then there's no longer anything "common" about it.

PH explicitly took on the risk of losses caused by pirate default anyway.  You can't explicitly take on a risk then walk away from it when it happens because "I was wrong and you believed me - so we're both at fault."  And, to get back to the original point of this post, given what's transpired with Kraken it's arguable that he's no longer even entitled to an assumption that he was being honest in his discussion with MP anyway: did Kraken somehow accidentally, and without his own knowledge, end up owning large chunks of pirate debt rather than what it was supposed to be invested in?  If someone's intentionally misrepresented themself on a very specific issue once do you really believe an argument predicated on the basis that when they made such a representation previously it was honest has any validity)?

I assume you accept that if PH KNEW he was invested in pirate but lied about it to MP then there was no common mistake.  Given Kraken and that he definitely KNEW what his Starfish investments were (MP didn't) how confident can you possibly be that he was honest when he made that assertion to MP?

1a. I could be using the option which does not display post signatures.

1b. That is Fluffygirl's credentials. I have already proved that another user is acting in behalf of Mircea Popescu.

2. CharlieContent did not proved anything at all.

So, I am still waiting to known what you are qualified for...

Shhhh she thinks I am destitute and beneath her, lets see if she actually posts a thread asking what people think of her stellar reputation.

Welfare? That's a surprise to me.... I have my doubts on that one..... ^

Go post a thread and ask for peoples opinion of your reputation. Do not take it from me, you are the pinnacle of awesome according to yourself. Just go make a thread and ask, what people take away from your reputation and the company you work for just based on your posts and the way you treat people. I wont even post in that thread, simply let it run its course. And yes, amazing on you digging through those posts from months ago, truly impressive that you can use a search function.

I am truly fascinated. Watch this:



So basically, you have been here almost two months, you're below the poverty line, pretty much the only way you count in this world is on the census/welfare programs and yet....

And yet you think you get a word, and a day in the sun, and that somehow you can discuss my reputation. You think somehow you can get into arguments with me, and "win", based on the fact that...you can make up shit and someone will take your made up shit seriously?!

Is this how it works on tv or something?

The Kraken fund may be a slam dunk case of fraud. The Kraken fund began operations after it was quite clear that Pirate was in massive default and very unlikely to ever pay back another penny. Yet the Kraken fund bought Pirate debt, and Patrick was clear about it being guaranteed by him personally. (All of this was known to the investors too, but the fault in this case is not equal. In this case, the investors mistake really was to rely on Patrick's promise. There was nothing Patrick didn't know at the time.)

I do not think you care what I post, nor anyone else. You simply state your opinions, slip in snide remarks about people you have had no dealing with or even a good reason to troll. Like the peanut gallery for the forums, you simply throw out the propaganda you want to insert, then disappear and stop responding if you do not like what you hear. You are a sad sad person who works for a pimp, who has unleashed you and all your self loathing on these forums. Please just stop, go sell crazy somewhere else, we are all stocked up here.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what reputation is. Now that we've established you have no idea why you care enough to post, can you explain why you think I should care about what you post?

Your motives are in question constantly, I am simply using the same method of discussion you use on everyone else. So why do you care? Personally, I think you are on so many peoples ignore list you are simply looking for new people to piss off. But you never know, you might think bringing your companies reputation down further (If that is possible.) will benefit you somehow in the long run.

Why do you care?

Perhaps she has a winning personality? I have noticed though that her ignore has gone from piss yellow to drank mountain dew all day gold. I wonder what percentage of people on the forums can even see her posts anymore. Way to advertise for your site. Here be trolls.

RMSR.
That means Read My Signature, Retard.


Lol, so of the two muppets in this thread one's a proven liar and the other's a proven nut.
Funny how the world works.