dolphin

@ElfCarbon Your view? Who are you? I offered a debate that was agreed upon. I spoke to @johnbrda for his input, too. It’s only poorly planned because one side no longer wants to participate. Fine with me. No good deed goes unpunished. If you don’t want my connections to advocate for #MMTLP, ok.

@JunkSavvy @TheRobbCarter

$MMTLP Ok. This is gonna be a long one. But I was tagged here, and then rocket scientist Dimino publicly nominated me to take this debate… so I’m chiming in. First of all, to Mr. @TheRobbCarter, on behalf of all shareholders with a brain, I’d like to thank you very much for using your platform to advocate for MMTLP transparency. You’ve dedicated countless hours to us, and selflessly gave us your platform to spread awareness when you didn't have to. I, for one, am grateful. On a personal note, I think the way you and @IsaiahAscher have been spoken to as of late by certain people, especially those who hold themselves out to be "pillars of this community", to me, is a poor reflection on them, and a poor representation of us as a shareholder group. All because you are trying to facilitate a debate from two different perspectives? This week, to me and others, was a masterclass in how you do NOT handle media connections. Shame on them, and apologies to you. Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in Whitney v. California (1927): “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Translation, the best remedy for false speech, is correct speech, not forced silence. Accordingly, I think it is unfair and unjust that ANYONE would tell you how to program your show, especially after very publicly saying "bring it on" in a show of spectacular bluster to invite a debate, only to seemingly be looking for a way to now back out of it. I find value in dismantling the counter argument (and have done so countless times), but you can’t do that without being willing to hear it. As @TheRealMJDimino points out, and I'm going to quote him so people can't hold me responsible for saying this: I think the real problem is that "@JunkSavvy is ill equipped to face Amy." And before people start crying and complaining (they will anyway), there is no harm or knock intended in saying that. I think Junk has spent a great deal of her time facilitating conversations that many have found extremely helpful over the last 3.5 years, but that does not necessarily translate to one having the experience or ability to effectively debate the various and very intricate facets of this situation. That's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. If people want to get defensive about my saying that, that's their resentment to live with, not mine. With respect to me potentially stepping in to do this debate. here's my issue: I LOVE a spirited debate with ANYONE! LOVE IT. I've civilly and publicly debated countless and very formidable opponents of our position, including one Mr. Gasparino. And after about the 100th time where I refuted his claims with actual and verifiable facts, he had no choice but to block me and then go back and delete all his posts (you can search my profile for posts he is tagged in to see the proof). Having said that, it seems that the people responsible for drawing you into the community along with @annvandersteel, have done so with the specific and (in Anne's case) STATED intent of attempting to ultimately bring this situation to the DOJ, and/or a courtroom as a vehicle to resolve this situation, expose government corruption, and advocate for the need for total market reform in the process. Many, myself included, feel that this would come at the cost of getting the best outcome possible. The concern is that bringing in the DOJ before resolution, could lead to outcomes where affected victims receive pennies on the dollar in the end, if anything at all, and after a very long and tedious court battle. Many of these people don't want this, and many don't have that luxury of time, sir. The fact is, I'm personally very much hoping for an outcome that will be (hopefully imminently) facilitated by Greg McCabe after the S-1 is made effective, and I feel that our tireless efforts over the last 3.5 years have set the table for that. Additionally, I feel that involving the DOJ or discussing market reform BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, could compromise Mr. McCabes ability to ultimately resolve this. Market reform is badly needed, yes. But to me, the need for these people (myself included) to have the best outcome possible, takes priority over that. I fully believe that the bankruptcy court, and Mr. McCabe's actions, respectively, will provide the ultimate answers and best end to this situation for us. And I could VERY WELL be wrong, but it feels like there is a race going on between Mr. McCabe and a certain faction here, and I would be serving the end goal and ultimate interests of people that I do not align with (respective to how I want this to end) by stepping into this debate. That is not something I can enter into this debate with in good conscience. They made their bed, they can either lay in it, or not show up and allow Amy to have the floor to herself. I'm not saying a debate shouldn't happen. And if I felt that this group and I were more aligned, and more united in our ultimate end goals, I would absolutely and gladly step in. I just can't support the end that I think this debate would ultimately contribute to. Once this situation is more close to an end that can not potentially be hijacked from the hands of Mr. McCabe, I would be THRILLED to appear on your show and debate this issue with ANYONE. As such, I respectfully - and again, with utmost appreciation for all of your time and coverage- have to pass on the debate, because it would further these people's cause and goals while contributing to their credibility, and these things are not what I believe is in the best interests of my investment, or that of the people I have truly fought very hard alongside with, and for, over the last 3.5 years. For what it is worth, in my opinion, in my absence, @bleedblue18 is probably the most suitable and best equipped person to handle this debate against Amy at this time, should he choose to do so. Sorry for the length of this insanely wordy and sometimes repetitive post, I just wanted to be deliberate, thorough, and considerate in my response. I also don't use AI to write posts like some do. Plus, it bothers some people that I write such long posts... and I enjoy bothering them 🤣. Thank you both again very much. Before anyone here starts bit... complaining... Robb TAGGED ME. I didn't butt in, and out of deference for the people who created this connection (and seemingly subsequently blew it), my communications with Mr. Carter have been very limited beyond exchanges related to this situation. I'm sure he would attest to that. All the best.

It's amazing that @thatgirltrader will have a segment on the @TheRobbCarter to talk about her perspective unabated. Hopefully this will be the first steps to sharing the perspective that @palikaras mismanaged his company, that @johnbrda and Greg McCabe sold heaps of shares and "successfully exited" as Brda's bio states. Hope the SEC investigation into both Palikaras and Brda resolves into holding them accountable for allegedly doing a Pump and Dump. As an outsider it's been interesting to watch this cult in real time. Truth wins $MMTLP