In life there is a truth, all people act on incentives. What is your incentive in protecting her?

Mainly in wondering how far and how long you will go in your pursuit of what is ludicrous and clearly not true in order to win a fight that your ex employer has no intention of following through on or of doing any of the things that would keep him out of trouble with his local constabulary and investors.

My incentive is not to protect her butt and to protect us, the audience, the people not involved, from being taken for a little narrative ride by someone with a knife to sharpen. I don't like to see the bullies get the upper hand. I don't like to see idiots promoted as quite clever people. I don't like to see people whom I don't know come into an area I do know with people that I do now and start demanding that those folks do what they say and believe only what they say, not the evidence of their lying eyes.

And, in less honorable news, every time I give you an opportunity to speak on behalf of CM, you walk deeper into expressing the worst kinds of beliefs and the worst kinds of mindsets for working in business. I couldn't have crafted you to be a more perfect representation of everything not to do when dealing with potential tension between an employer and an ex-employee. You have done everything literally slap ass backwards, and it's very impressive showing.

I keep wondering how far you are going to go with that. How many of my questions are you going to sidestep. How many failures to provide actual proof you're going to pass by. How much you are going to push ever more on "I believe" and not a single bit on "I can prove."

Where is YOUR evidence?

See, again – this is the funny thing. I don't have to provide you any kind of evidence. I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim. I am the one that you are trying to persuade that your extraordinary claim is true. Which you've done a terrible job of, so far. I hope your job when it came to dealing with media was not writing advertising or trying to hook new clients to buy such. It seems – unsuited to you.

You sent me a picture with words which are ostensibly from Lori but aren't a confession of actual mishandling of corporate funds. They could have been anybody's, and on more than one occasion there referred to as "sent to me." Not "sent to the company." Given that Core Media hasn't seen fit to actually define what her role in the US was, nor what her limitations were supposed to be, or the projects that she was supposed to be on, or how her access to their finances was actually supposed to work – all things which would be able to define an actual criminal act – nor has it explained sufficiently why, despite the fact that the directors of the company can be held responsible for mismanagement of assets if they go walking and insufficient amounts were deemed to be done by the directorship, charges are not being brought against this supposed embezzler?

You sent me a link to a twitter something that has been since deleted, but it certainly not her account which I linked before you did to her functional and completely open remaining presence on Twitter. If you couldn't be clever enough to follow that link, there's not much I can do about that.

You have told me some things, none of which I can actually believe, and you haven't seen fit to support any of those things with facts. Verifiable facts.

Last, but certainly not least, as anyone who has studied logic to any level knows, you cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove that Lori didn't embezzle tens of thousands of dollars from Core Media – because I can never prove a negative at all. I think that did not happen leaves no fingerprints, no traces, no paperwork. There is nothing to see. That's why the burden of proof is on the claimant, to prove that what is claimed and its extraordinary nature, reflects accurately what did happen.

You won't do that. Maybe you can't do that, maybe you would like to do that, but you won't do that.

I'm sorry that you are incapable of understanding the difference between assertion and proof, and have no idea of what verifiability means, and don't understand that when someone is accused of a capital crime, others in their circle may be interested in what reasoning that you are suggesting went into that – and simultaneously, why isn't it being treated as such if such a thing happened?

That's all on you to explain. But better than you, Core Media. So far, everything that you've said about how CM does business should throw massive red flags in front of a curious investor.

I actually don't care about whether you call me kettle black or refrigerator silver, the problem is you will still look ridiculous making the same old claims, unwilling to express the actual truth, and continuing to drive the reputation of the organization and of the field right through the floor.

It is entirely impressive. I hope they're not paying you in any context, because you are doing CM no favors.

Core Media needs to provide the evidence that Lori had access to "tens of thousands of dollars" without oversight, they need to explain how it came to be that she could spend those funds without anyone knowing or being involved, that things would go so long as for her to go out of her way to find more clients to try and cover the costs of the ones she had blown off or pre-spent, and why when this is discovered the company can't be bothered to protect itself by actually going to court in pursuit of protection of its investors' money because otherwise the directors could be held directly liable themselves.

I have no claims you need to verify. I'm simply pointing out that in the absence of your proof, guilt isn't something that we get to sign up front. It's all "innocent until proven guilty" around here. We find it works better.

Or you could keep helping CM look terrible just like the rest of the crypto community. That's also a choice.