-
If you read my original post about it, I argue that there is no opaque structure, at least not on the 'evidence' presented.
No, you argue that it doesn't matter that the structure is opaque because you assume there's not much money in it. You then also say it'd only be a story if he was pilfering. You're basically defining your own criteria for whether it's a story or not in a way that will fail your test. Straw man isn't quite the right term, but it's disingenuous.
h2o-
No, you argue that it doesn't matter that the structure is opaque because you assume there's not much money in it. You then also say it'd only be a story if he was pilfering. You're basically defining your own criteria for whether it's a story or not in a way that will fail your test. Straw man isn't quite the right term, but it's disingenuous.
None of this is what I said. I first said:
What a ridiculous article. They're really grasping at straws. I say it's ridiculous because it tries to make a lot of very little, styling itself à la Panama Papers ('complex snarl of companies'--errr no, not by the evidence you present).
This is obviously a contestable claim. However, I didn't say 'it doesn't matter that the structure is opaque because [I] assume there's not much money in it'. Instead, I said that it would be a more substantial story if there was more information on how much money is involved. I quite explicitly said that I don't think the structure is complex at all:
The 'good bank/bad bank' comparison is hilarious. There are legal requirements to fulfil when you're employing people and those structures will have been set up/be required for doing that, no more. There also seems to be nothing 'complex' about these simple companies.
But it's clear that my post wasn't very clear--as is the matter with Internet posts, it was written quickly, with no expectation that someone would pick up on it in this way. The paragraphs could probably be re-ordered (e.g., moving the contested paragraph to the end) and a few conjunctions added to make it clearer. For instance, the point about pilfering could have had 'either' at the end or an 'also' or 'additionally' at the beginning to make clear that it wasn't meant to replace or explain what went before, but be an addition.
Oliver Schick
No, I got the article just fine. If you read my original post about it, I argue that there is no opaque structure, at least not on the 'evidence' presented. The paragraph of my post that h2o highlighted was merely in addition to all that.
And yes, because of the lack of evidence and/or research, the article was largely pointless.