And they matched the SAIC/SAT filings. So there goes another theory of LBCB, straight out the window..... LOL LOL.
Unless he's going to tell you that LPH is not a fraud. I will not be reading his comments because he is on ignore permanently.
Let A be the statement "John cheats on his taxes"
Let B be the statement "John is a murderer"
NotB is "John does not cheat on his taxes"
NotA is "John is not a murderer"
Throwing out 4 statements with no cause-effect, or if-then, is of course just 4 statements.
let A be the statement "the animal is a dog"
let B be the statement "the animal is a mammal"
NotA is "the animal is not a dog"
NotB is "the animal is not a mammal"
If the statement "If the animal is a dog then the animal is a mammal" is true, then it is also true that the statement "If the animal is not a mammal, then the animal is not a dog" is also true.
Let A be the statement "SEC filings do not match SAT/SAIC filings"
Let B be the statement "The company is a fraud"
According to lbcb the following is a true statement "If the SEC filings do not match SAT/SAIC filings the company is a fraud" which implies "If the company is not a fraud then the SEC filings match SAT/SAIC filings"
That is LOGIC. Now statements assumed to be true are under scrutiny here.
Wow. What a bunch of word soup. You don't have a clue about the subject matter. You don't know the difference between an argument and a hypothetical. You should actually study up on logic and you will see your fallacies.
=According to lbcb the following is a true statement "If the SEC filings do not match SAT/SAIC filings the company is a fraud"
Oh yeah... lol... how come you need another alias to post this? I don't believe I ever made that comment, but I could have. It would have been a poor choice of words. Once again, you attribute something to me without backing it up. I believe I have always stated something slightly different. SEC filings do not need to "match" SAT/SAIC filings. I have clarified this many times. There may be slight differences due to different accounting methods. It does NOT mean you can report $300M in revenue to the SEC and $3M to the Chinese Authorities and have both be truthful. It is a fact that the ABAT SEC filings did not come anywhere close to the SAIC filings. The "explanation" has been that everybody cheats on their SAIC filings and only the SAT filings count. That is ludicrous. Many companies have released all filings and there has been a clear correlation between all three reports. How come ABAT never released their SAT filings if they matched the SEC filings? If you were completely innocent and wanted to regain credibility, wouldn't you verify cash and release all reports proving you were honest? Of course you would. ABAT chose to slink away and claim they were victimized when, in fact, they brought everything upon themselves.
=And they matched the SAIC/SAT filings. So there goes another theory of LBCB, straight out the window
And what "theory" would that be? Just proves he still doesn't have a clue about what a logical argument is. He keeps trying to argue a converse just like most of the fools here.
Just because there is a problem with companies whose SEC filings do not match their SAIC/SAT filings does not imply all companies whose SEC filings match their SAIC/SAT filings are NOT frauds.
That is like... John cheats on his taxes. John is a murderer. Jim does not cheat on his taxes. Jim cannot be a murderer. That is the logic realdunce is trying to imply. Matching filings does not imply the absence of a problem with the company. All filings may be using false numbers or it could be part of a bigger ruse to not give ammo for others to attack them.
He wants to act intelligent, but he obviously has no common sense and cannot grasp the basics of what a logical argument is. Guess that is why he falls for so many scams.