If true, I’m quite shocked just based on the bald-faced, zeroth order flagrant incorrectness of things you wrote in other comments about it.

I worked as a fund manager at an asset management firm for a few years, often sitting daily with our general counsel on many issues. Nothing you have said about this, including the totally off the wall comparison with Phil Falcone, causes me to believe your take is trustworthy here. I’m not a lawyer, but just because you allegedly are one doesn’t mean I’m going to take your opinion on this at face value.

Prepare to be quite shocked, bud. I'm still waiting for you to point out what exactly I've said that's wrong. Since your comments are full of angry rhetoric and lacking in substance it seems that you strongly dislike what I've said which is actually very different from what I've said being "flagrantly incorrect". Classic mixup.

> often sitting daily with our general counsel on many issues

I think you think this somehow bolsters your (again, completely emotional) argument? On the contrary, this is a pretty good indicator you don't understand federal securities laws. And I must say, I concur with your former GC's assessment.

> “I'm still waiting for you to point out what exactly I've said that's wrong.”

I don’t know why you’re waiting on that. It’s absolutely not my job to go item by item through the comments and chronicle it for you, that’s on you if you care (or don’t, I don’t care, and I won’t be baited further). I just felt somebody needed to mention that they don’t take what you’re saying as accurate or trustworthy.

If you are making a claim that everything someone is saying is wrong, you should will be willing to state what you think they are actually wrong about, and why.

No one is asking you to "go line by line", but right now you're just yelling "YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT" without even specifying what you're talking about.

No, one does not have to respond to “citation-needed” requests for bolstering arguments. Others are perfectly free to discredit me for that, ignore what I am saying, that is fine, but nobody is “required” and nobody “should” engage with that in every case.

In this particular case I think the arguments have been repeated many times across all the different GME threads. My goal is not to repeat them here, only to register dissent, which is a perfectly valid goal for me to have.