I'm not interested in continuing this discussion if you insist on making it about me personally. If you'd like to address any of the specific points I made, rat

I'm not interested in continuing this discussion if you insist on making it about me personally. If you'd like to address any of the specific points I made, rather than just replying to the elmu ones, or attacking me personally, please do so. Case in point: of the 7 paragraphs I wrote, you ignored 5 or 6, attacked me personally, complained about the remainder, then attacked me personally again. As for the judgement of the judge: you brought judgment up, claiming you personally thought something was obvious or presumable. It wasn't, as a matter of judgement. You claimed that something wasn't "fully fleshed-out logic". It was, as a matter of judgement. These matters which you brought up, were decided by a judge, whose judgement supercedes ours, and it's not unreasonable to point that out when you bring them up. Missing is a response to the basic tenet that, if you own a company, increasing the value of that company (by performing, rather than checking out or quitting) is compensation equal to the amount you increased the value, multiplied by the fraction of the company you own. If you are honestly trying to engage in a conversation about compensation, you can respond to that point. If not, that's fine, you can spend your time how you wish.