> The assertion that there is no proof the money is Core Medias. Well, you just need to think deductively.

No. No I really don't.

See, you just don't seem to be getting this part. The person making the claim has the _responsibility_ to prove it, or to at least provide supporting verifiable facts which prove their claim. It is not, ever, the responsibility of those who the claimant want to persuade to come up with reasons, suppositions, or wild flights of fantasy to support that claim.

Core Media (and it amuses me to no end that every time we mention their name in this thread increases the chances of it being surfaced by Google closer and closer to the top hit for all eternity) and you are making the assertion. You, being an ex-employee, really have no means of proving their contention. Core Media, by dint of being _a media company_ and having put together the original "fraud" post, has every means of proving their contention -- but haven't. To us or the authorities.

> Why would she have made such a confession on slack if it wasn't Core Media funds?

I'm sure I could _make up_ a reason, as you seem to want me to, but I don't have to. I don't think its a _confession_ at all. Honestly, if you're going to try and use something like that as evidence of wrongdoing, you have to contextualize it. Random thing said on Slack? She could have just have been telling a trusted confident about a particularly boneheaded move she did with her own funds. I don't know and moreover _can't_ know because its just a naked screencap on imgur and not a link to an extended discussion with post and reply. It is entirely absent of anything but the specific text within it, and that says _nothing_ about whose money it was, how much money it was (beyond a mention of 7 ETH, which is currently a lot less than "tens of thousands" and wasn't trading at 10x that at any point). 

I'll also point out the excerpt doesn't say _where_ on Slack it was posted. Again, naked assertion of where it was. Proof would involve linking to the discussion or at least revealing the whole thread. There'd be no question of where it originated or in what context -- and it might have a hint of being more than assertion.

But is that from their _company internal_ Slack stack? Because you're an _ex_-employee, recall. The Imgur image was posted two hours ago. Are you going to contend that Core Media doesn't revoke the access to corporate internal communications for ex-employees? Because that's bad practice on so many business levels it's hard to say where to start. If we're being deductive, we have to deduce _either_ you still have access to internal corporate communications as an ex-employee which is a huge problem for a media company with promotional clients _or_ that you have sat on that bit of screencap for however its been since it was posted without actually providing it to corporate to bolster their argument.

It's a good thing I'm not deducing stuff or I'd have to deduce CM is a lousy business that can't protect their assets or you're really weird and stalker-ish. (If its any comfort, my money would be on the first. You're welcome.)

> Again, I have already stated, Core Media has a record of making PROFITS, Lori has a record of LOSSES, whether that is of a criminal or stupid nature is undetermined, however, it is my belief she is a criminal.

Wouldn't that imply that CM is guilty of being terrible at media business and neither they nor you should be trusted, since by your own assertion both you and the company both trusted and admired her -- and they did so enough to offer her untrammeled access to "tens of thousands of dollars"?

Asking for a friend.

Interestingly, the more _you_ talk, the worse _they_ look, which is impressive work if you can get it.

> That is my personal opinion, and I refuse to protect either criminal or someone that is incompetent, for it is the free markets job to weed out the incompetent actors and let those who are productive continue.

You can _believe_ anything you want to, but when you start making assertions of criminal activity such that it can impact their livelihood, you need _proof,_ not assertion and belief.

For myself, I don't care what you believe or even what _I_ believe so much as I care _what is true._ Truth leaves footprints and fingerprints. Truth has context. Truth leaves a papertrail. Truth is exactly what you can prove and no more. Truth requires more than simple assertion.

_Something_ happened. In no way do I believe that it is what you've described or what Core Media has hinted at because neither provided anything like proof. Lori hasn't really said, either -- but she doesn't *have* to. She's not making an extraordinary contention, you and Core Media are. And the longer you go with just assertions, just accusations, and not even the basic outlines of answering the essentials of what you contend occured, the worse it looks for the basic contention.

If you intend to persuade, you need to actually make an argument, support it with facts and not supposition, and at least pretend to be media industry professionals. _Pretend,_ even if you can't really manage it.

You want to know what makes fintech and crypto look like a bad ecology? This kind of petty shit. If it's not petty, then the professional actors need to _act_ like it's not petty, which neither you nor Core Media have done. They claim "tens of thousands of dollars" and act like its a couple hundred, you act like it's someone lifting a paperback from a grocery and your belief is way more important than anyone seeing it happen. 

But I can't really blame you. The whole crypto industry is full of petty bullshit and assertion-over-proof. It's the world of crypto cultists and shed-devs who aren't really worth the shed, wishful thinking and wistful wanting. When someone expects proof of promises, smoke and mirrors get trotted out and when someone holds anyone to their expectations, here come the excuses and evasions.

Should I really expect more? Really?