I wrote a lot of substantive stuff, and your inability to get past one small opinion I voiced illustrates what I was talking about. Take in the totality of what I said, process it, say something intelligent about all of it, show you followed the thread; don't simply look for some little thing I said that you can then crow about.

I have no intellectual curiosity? omg you are pathetic. I'm the only person in that situation (including the attorneys) who had read all the of the voluminous bylaws and researched every aspect of the parts that I did not understand because IANAL. And I did all that way before any of this dispute came up, simply because I am intellectually curious. I was the previous President, I knew all the players, I know what they read and did not read.

When the disputes came up, I knew how the rules dictated they be handled. Other shareholders came to me and asked for my help because they knew I knew. Smarter people than you will always outfox you by knowing the rules better than you. It's more gentlemanly for you to take your L than to look for some tiny thing to crow about that is essentially off topic.

This has gotten out of scope for this forum. But I will make one last observation: that grandstanding does not make the point you think it does.

I had edited my comment to additionally point out how poorly you made your argument, I just want to make sure you don't miss it.

You really are not demonstrating here what you think you're demonstrating.

You do realize that with this comment you just reinforced the parent point ?