Reply to comment

I had great concerns about what you were trying to accomplish in diving into this. In the AVC committee I did not say "Monkey Canning is a crook." I only looked at the preponderance of the evidence. The most damning thing was his claim that he 'donated' an unverifiable AVC risk fund to some third-party because the amount was too small to be of any benefit to AVC shareholders. He later declared that the committee had failed to do its duty (he was the most vocal advocate of my joining on as an objective party) and he intended to redouble his efforts to AVC. Apparently the new approach would not include the risk fund. Or if it would, then he was lying about donating it. I digress.

Where Frank Corsi is concerned, by his own admission he abandoned AVC. Why he did it you can speculate on all day, but he did it. Was he directly responsible for everything that happened afterwards? Was Monkey Canning working closely with Jasper Tizzy? There's a suggestion that he was. There's a suggestion that he wasn't. If I wanted to do a thorough analysis that investigated Dawes Financial Corps and even VHI (only because Tizzy named him as a 'good friend), I could. I could analyze the claim of Tizzy's numerous alts. Or Monkey Canning's. I could investigate PatrickJ Ah and Intlibber Brautigan. But why? By Tizzy's own admission he abandoned AVC. If he feels that he should not be held accountable for things that happened after he abandoned the company then neither should be credited with these claimed-attempts to 'protect' AVC shareholders. If his intention was to protect AVC shareholders, his position as CEO would have provided him the best opportunity to do that.

I asked myself why Frank Corsi is returning now trying to 'clear his name.' Is Central Grid suffering due to his association with it? Is it a house of cards ready to crumble and Mr. Corsi may wish to return as himself (instead of the alts he supposedly has, if he has them) or is his RL reputation hurting because of the plethora of google results that must link his name to AVC and beyond? I do not know the answers to that.

What I do believe is that Mr. Corsi should not expect us to 'clear his name.' I remain firm in my belief that nothing I have reported has been false. And I also believe Mr. Corsi to be an intelligent and calculating man. If I am said not to be 'telling the whole story' I would respond: "I am basing my reporting off of a man who abandoned a company.' I am not here to vindicate him. And given that his contact with me followed an emotional rollercoaster of attacking my credibility and honesty, by virtue of those attacks, I would not be the best party to investigate him anyway. If I turned around said "You're right, Frank, I need to investigate the whole truth" and he readily agreed that I was the right person to do that, what would it say about either of us? Am I only credible or objective when I write things how my accuser wants them to be written? Am I a credible person if I let fear of negative comments distort 'truth?" No to both. I listen to accusations and I am readily-willing to admit when I was, in fact, wrong about something I wrote. But it will be a very very cold day in hell before I pander. Pride is one thing. Integrity another.

During the diagloue between you and Mr. Corsi, I fully expected some new prospective business idea to emerge as a 'means to repay AVC shareholders.' Mr. Corsi acted alone when he dumped AVC. If he wants to 'clear his name' or 'right a wrong' then I feel it is his job to figure out how best to do that. If it involves anyone 'investing in him' then I would very strongly oppose this.

Personally I do not think Monkey Canning or Frank Corsi to be 'bad people.' In real life, I have said that 'Hitler probably had some endearing traits too.' Neither are Hitler, but the point is that I don't believe in a universal good or bad and I do accept everything is contextual. Within the context of finance and investments, I believe Mr. Corsi to be untrustworthy because he abandoned AVC. He may very well be a savvy businessman, but he did abandon a company. All of the gossip, accusations, or rumors, need not factor into this opinion.

During my discussion with him in the comments, I realized that simply admitting his wrongdoing and finding his own way of reconciliation was not enough. It had to follow a process of attributing the 'greater wrong' to other parties. That, really, has nothing to do with anything when it comes to righting Frank Corsi's wrong, unless he's finger pointing to draw attention from his perceived culpability. If Frank Corsi wants to amend trespasses that he admits to committing, it should follow something better than "But I wasn't the only one" or "Other people had more to gain from me in x situation." And until he reconciles his own wrongdoing free of external attributions or expectations that he should be trusted, I do not see it as contrition, but deflection. And no matter what his method, until there are firm regulations to prevent anything that has happened from happening again, I would, as I've said, encourage great caution to anyone that would invest in an enterprise that boasts him as a collaborator.

Where this matter is concerned, that is the extent of my thoughts. Since you asked for them.