4 ms·

The parent poster completely altered his post after I responded to it so I would take that into mind when reading things. Also, throughout this thread I have n

by whatok 11y ago

The parent poster completely altered his post after I responded to it so I would take that into mind when reading things. Also, throughout this thread I have never once mentioned anything about startups but assume away.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
Nope. Parent Poster added to the explanation so you could be less ignorant. The second paragraph you referred to is still there, it is just expanded upon with more paragraphs for greater detail and clearer explanations. The reason this was done was because I reached my post limit. Not like anyone else is looking at this anymore anyway. I can move the additional explanations to the responding post if you want, as that's where I intended it to be at first. I could've waited for the rate limiter to expire but I responded hastily because I was highly, highly offended by you saying that my paragraph was "utter nonsense." You don't say these kinds of things to people in real life. I'm not sure if your post qualifies for a flag but I do know really negative comments like that are frowned upon by the moderators. You never once mentioned startups. That is true. But you do mention the creation of a company. You're telling me that the creation of a company isn't a startup? Ok I now assume that the creation of a company isn't a startup. You're talking exclusively about split-ups, as that's the only other time I know about where company creation occurs without the creation of a startup: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/split-up.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/split-up.asp. If a company splits up. The old company is destroyed and the new companies are the sum of it's old parts. No new value is created. Understand? Or is my assumption incorrect? Clarify if i'm wrong about what you're referring to by "sole creation of a single company."

4 ms·

The parent poster completely altered his post after I responded to it so I would take that into mind when reading things. Also, throughout this thread I have n

by whatok 11y ago

crimsonalucard 11y ago
Nope. Parent Poster added to the explanation so you could be less ignorant. The second paragraph you referred to is still there, it is just expanded upon with more paragraphs for greater detail and clearer explanations. The reason this was done was because I reached my post limit. Not like anyone else is looking at this anymore anyway. I can move the additional explanations to the responding post if you want, as that's where I intended it to be at first. I could've waited for the rate limiter to expire but I responded hastily because I was highly, highly offended by you saying that my paragraph was "utter nonsense." You don't say these kinds of things to people in real life. I'm not sure if your post qualifies for a flag but I do know really negative comments like that are frowned upon by the moderators. You never once mentioned startups. That is true. But you do mention the creation of a company. You're telling me that the creation of a company isn't a startup? Ok I now assume that the creation of a company isn't a startup. You're talking exclusively about split-ups, as that's the only other time I know about where company creation occurs without the creation of a startup: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/split-up.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/split-up.asp. If a company splits up. The old company is destroyed and the new companies are the sum of it's old parts. No new value is created. Understand? Or is my assumption incorrect? Clarify if i'm wrong about what you're referring to by "sole creation of a single company."