Seriously, what the heck? I joined in to echo disagreement about a justification given -- one which would (dubiously) imply that you can do whatever the heck yo

Seriously, what the heck? I joined in to echo disagreement about a justification given -- one which would (dubiously) imply that you can do whatever the heck you want with the company once you control 51% (like siphoning resources to another company you fully own). I never disputed poison pills being legal, only one comment's justification for that conclusion. It's not responsive to simply assert that poison pills are "settled law", since I wasn't ever disputing that, and no clear-headed, good-faith reading of my post would attribute such a remark to me. And yet ... not only do some of you think the above reply is somehow responsive (or not a strawman), you seem to think I'm wrong to simply point out how it isn't. Someone want to tell me what's going on? Is there some deep insight I can't seem to fathom from tptacek's non-repsonsive, dismissive reply that makes it all somehow worthwhile?