gOoDbyE

Author: PressF4Respect

Posts

Read-only
Total: 158
#61
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Okay, let’s break this down.

You claimed no big company has majority voting stock untraded (wrong).

You then claimed google was not controlled by those working for google (wrong again)

You then changed your argument, and claimed that the owners are not google employees or workers (also wrong)

You then claimed people on the board bought b stock when it was traded them became board members after (it was never traded)
 
You went on to appear claim people owned regular stock, loaded the board, then owned the b stock as a result of that (nope)

Now you’re changing your argument again.



Apparently they didn’t buy all the B stock but they got B stocks by investing in the original private equity. That’s like completely changed again.

It’s also also wrong. Again.

97.5% of B class stock are not owned by private equity, or any board member that wasn’t present at the founding of the original google enterprise.



You keep getting basic facts wrong; and then keeping changing your argument.






Topic's author
#62
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Ramshutu
That’s not the worst of him. Not even close.

#63
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Ramshutu, you should fact check yourself before you paraphrase me stating correct things to mock me with lies.

The things you just said I'm saying are true... You just mocked yourself.
#64
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
there are a select few Google employees who steer the company in terms of voting shares and such, they're literally less than 1% of the overall employment base of Google. The rest are outside investors who are bought-in board members of Google due to their investment.

Many are secret, hiding behind representatives of investment-pool brokers.
#65
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Type b stock was traded for many years until recently, really man stop kidding yourself.
#66
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
you pull this 97.5% thing where? Show me. It's 14% not 97.5%.
#67
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@PressF4Respect
Does this mean you aren't going to play in my mafia game?
#68
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Which fact have I posted that you feel is a lie?
#69
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
@RM

58% of stock votes are owned by the google board; of which 56.6% of the total vote is owned by page, Brin and Schmidt. That means 97.5% (58/56.6*100) of board votes are owned by those 3.

The 97.5% was the percentage of votes owned by the board of directors owned by those three. This demonstrates your claim that the board has people from private equity or brought in recently (which claim depends on which post of yours I look at) is horseshit.


Now: how certain are you that class b shares were traded?
#70
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
No it doesn't, lol. Those are exactly what I said; people who bought their way in from the outside and now are official board members. 

The 'originals' (that you said owned 97.5%) own 14% of voting shares and/or power.
#71
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
It's not horseshit at all, they made their power public, by choice.
#72
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
You can keep writing all you want man, you think you are some guru of Googling about Google and have unlocked all the secrets. Meanwhile they're reading this chat right now laughing their heads off at your stupidity and what a sardonic bully you've been to someone who is actually correct as fuck on many things. 
#73
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
you changed your statistic, conveniently. You admit now it's a lot more 50/50 at best between board members and non board members and are ignoring the capacity of other private investors who give them money and influence quietly, not that you believe in that stuff.


you do not understand how Illuminati work, iceberg and tip is an understatement with the stuff you have access to, Google is owned by others, massively, they then transfer money and/or influence to others on their behalf, including Google board members themselves at times but at other times a trusted broker.
#74
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
I didn’t change the statistic at any point; 97.5% is the percentage of the board controlled votes owned by the three people: it highlights how your claim about hoard conteol cannot be true.

Now... How confident are you that B class stocks were previously traded?

#75
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Dude - the SEC filings prove - categorically - definitively - irrefutably - that Sergei Brin, Larry Page (Foundees), and Eric Schmidt (CEO from first venture capital funded google as a company, hired by page and Brin), own 56.6% of the votes. Not 14%.

What are you smoking?

#76
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Completely confident, even on a surface level the remaiing 44% must have been traded, which ignores the fact that all stocks owned by Google themselves are actually 'traded' but bought by Google before others could (or wanted to), is all.

You're also ignoring the fact that someone can pay Google as a private interest with a very private contract and say it's contingent on them owning part of what, on paper, is the board member's shares. NSA have done this 100%, as have many others. The remainder hide behind the 44% people (and/or maybe are them).
#77
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
you are changing what you said to suit your agenda. 

97.5% of B class stock are not owned by private equity, or any board member that wasn’t present at the founding of the original google enterprise.
wrong. 14% and there were only 2.
#78
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Eric Schmidt (CEO from first venture capital, hired by page and Brin)

perfect example of someone buying their way in, on paper being a Google employee. that guy is responsible for so much of google's surveillance and corruption further downt he line due to who is behind him but you wouldn't know that, you don't care who is funding him or that he wasn't part of the original 2 that you said owned 97.5% of what they own 14% of.
#79
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
97.5% of board controlled voting stock is owned by those three. That consistories 56.6% of voting stock.

That information comes from 2019 SEC filings.

The numbers you are using appear to be coming from your rectum.

#80
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
again just semantic dancing, if type A can vote and type B can vote and overall the percentage ends up being that the voters are mainly not Google or bought their way in and are on paper google employees hiding many interests and secret funders behind them, it follows that the etnire point I made in the context of that debate are right.

you can run around semantically using A and B all you want, that doesn't even cover the fact that not everyone officially owning the stocks is the entirety (or near to it) of the people funding them, as individual representations of the group interest (to fund Google on their behalf or be a Google board member on their behalf)


You don't know much about Google or Facebook if you don't realise they were NSA ploys from extremely early on in their rise.
#81
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
yeah you can twist it any way you want. this is a nice semantic loophole to avoid admitting that type A stock can vote, bravo you 'win'? lol?

I have a debate due very soon and stuff to do, I can't be fucked with your bs.
#82
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
The 42% of voting stock not owned by the google board is almost all class A stock; and none of it has been traddd.

I will happily debate you on it, if you’re supremely confident in the accuracy of your claims.
#83
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
again just semantic dancing, if type A can vote and type B can vote and overall the percentage ends up being that the voters are mainly not Google
FALSE

56.6% of the controlling vote of Google is owned by Brin, Page and Schmidt. 

These three control the majority control stake of google. This is documented and proven by the SEC filings I linked that prove it.



Topic's author
#84
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Wylted
:( 
#85
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
56% lol. Schmidt is literally a buy-in 'call me Google now' shareholder with many people backing him financially and influencing him, precisely as I said. the people behind him are not Google, at all.
#86
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Schmidt is literally a buy-in 'call me Google now' shareholder

Is this coming from the same fact book you got your false 14% claim, the false claim that less than 40% of google voting stock were privately owned, the false claim that class B stocks were publically traded; or any one of the ever changing claims you’re making?

Your butthole is not a reliable source of information.
#87
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
"I let my medals do the talking"

At least they don't binge accept 60 debates at a time fake a forum to get likes smh

*Proceeds to write an essay against ram and pressf*


#88
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
The earth is shaped like a t-rex dummies don't you ever get it...NASA is the illuminati and they faked that the earth is round for no reason.
#89
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
"at least they don't"

Actually their ratings are entirely due to free wins, if you mean the top 2. I can pinpoint the overall rating gains from such wins and also elaborate on when/where they knew the user was banned beforehand or would be angry and useless because it's someone who was furious and didn't care about winnning at the time of writing.

I wasn't one of them, oromagi so called 'genuinely defeated me' by ramshutu's logically fallacious vote but ramshutu did defeat me twice, second time was my own doing first was me accepting a debate i knew i'd lose to just shut him  up about me 'not really believing' that he has an agenda when he votes against me and lies often in his rfd's in cunning ways.
#90
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
NASA is the illuminati and they faked that the earth is round for no reason.

no reason? Do you want the reasons?