Before I go on, have you seen this?
Nope. Hadn't seen that. And I won't even bother to question authenticity because no one would bother replicating the effect of a shitty screen capture.
Not fully an admission of criminal activity, but an admission of monumental dumb. And no kind of proof that the funds in question belonged to Core Media in any way. "Wanted to hire me" suggests rather the opposite, unless CM is making the claim that any and all activity she did was supposed to be owned by them, which is as egregious a claim as anything else I've seen floated around here.
Is that the assertion you want to stand behind?
(We'll leave aside the issue of citing a screen capture cropped on Imgur as your source. Which the company in question didn't cite and which characterizes things entirely differently. The level of bullshit has not subsided, it just drifts differently.)
Furthermore, she hijacked the Core Media twitter after the event.
We'll do this again: Assertion. Facts not in evidence. You want to claim it? Prove it. Otherwise you're just spewing smoke and a vague feces odour.
I just tried to view her twitter and now she has deleted it. An admission of guilt perhaps?
And that would just be inaccurate and untrue. Which five minutes of basic Google would reveal. Did you think I wouldn't drop the five minutes it takes into checking basic asserted facts? You don't know me.
You might could make the claim that she blocked you on Twitter, but that she deleted her account? No. Not even vaguely like true.
Your aspersions are bad and you should feel bad.
I'm also very suspicious of you. Why do you care so much? Why are you writing essays defending her without her giving a shed of proof? The more you write the more passionate you get to defend her. Why? Were you in on it?
[drily] That's right, you've got me. I absolutely absconded with the money with my secret mistress and now, rather than simply keeping my mouth shut and masturbating with my ill-gotten gains I'm here challenging you to present proof and support of extraordinary claims of my own criminal acts.
You cannot really be that stupid. Seriously. Tell me that's not possible. Maybe my expectation of humanity is too high in general and for you specifically, but I expected better than that.
Here's the thing: You have absolutely no reason to trust me. I demand no trust. I make no claims. I am the fly on the wall with multitudinous eye-facets. The gadfly. The pernicious thorn in the side of the ignorant. I don't casually stand by and let people say stupid things in public without taking the opportunity to wave my arms, shout loudly, "Hey, everybody, look; an idiot!" And then beam proudly.
And if you think these little responses are essays, you've never read my essays. They might exceed your attention span, so I don't recommend it.
The more I write, the more I see there's a lot of stupid to go around here, and I take it mildly personally from people who are ostensibly in the media business. Call it professional pride or the defense of cogent argument. You can call it whatever you like.
If I were in on it, though, I have bad news for you: It'd have been done better.
Whatever "it" is, which still has not been accurately or adequately defined.
I expect better of people and you, for whatever reason, are consistently delivering worse. So here's the deal. If CM and you want to assert that Lori has committed a criminal act, you need to define what it is and how it was performed and come up with a good reason that CM hasn't pursued criminal prosecution for what is grand larceny and embezzlement even in Commonwealth countries, risking prosecution from their own investors. Without that, there's absolutely no reason to believe any of the characterization being put forward, other than Lori might be financially dumb .
It's their reputation and yours which are on the block. I'm not making assertions of criminal activity. I'm just demanding answers if you're going to.
You are forgetting something, I'm not an employee of CM, I'm an EX employee. I don't have evidence. I am showing you what is publicly available. I believe the following is proof she had stole funds in my opinion. For if I am to believe that she put money into a ponzi scheme with CM money just based on stupidity, you must think I'm an idiot. Under what circumstances would one spend company money without consent to a shifty enterprise without telling management. In fact, this evidence is so blatant in my view that I believe you are protecting a criminal. But let's just say Lori is just dumb, you are still defending her. What gives? Surely a man with morals would not stick up for someone that destroyed wealth. Even if she had NOT stolen the funds, I absolutely believe it is personally reasonable to alert others of potential threats or stupidity. For if she was to start this business, she would destroy more wealth, and that would be on you for protecting her.