We have a heckler among us

Back from voting; thumb-dot and all; was fun to listen to the light hearted banter of the voters in the cue. The coffee that was for sale, was exceptionally bad but it went for the local rugby club. So all is well. I just wish they would give our police a better designed headwear.

I was sternly reprimanded this morning. Firstly I had said "Univers" instead of "Universe" and she wasn't happy! So I fixed it. Happy?
Then, somewhere, in these electronic pages I had said "dentures" instead of "debentures". Except for one person, everybody new what I was talking about. I tried to look up the error in order to rectify it, but can't find my "dentures." For those who are confused, it is my debenture investment that is at stake here, my dentures are fine.

Anonymous 1a
When I started this blog, it was not intended exclusively for the uniquely intelligent, but what I never expected was that beings from the outer planets of our solar system would participate as well. Clearly there is a reality-difference here, and we need to be tolerant. For example, yesterday an anonymous comment was published (link):

Perhaps Edwafin is correct - they haven[']t done anything wrong - they sell a high risk investment and therefore as investors you should be willing to take that risk. What of the sales excutives who flogged the sale of the debentures without being completely transparent that they were high risk. Would people still have invested if the product was sold for what it really was? Would people have ploughed their entire pensions into the busines[s]? Just a thought.

Let me explain, but please go over the entries in this blog again. This discussion is not about who is wrong or right, it is about money disappearing. The concept of wrong is very vague, and what is "wrong" for one person is not necessary "wrong" for another. Murder is wrong in times of peace, but is normal at times of war, in fact a soldier who refuses to shoot an "enemy", is wrong and can be killed himself. Humans have a way of constructing rules that suit a specific circumstance. That is why it is illegal (wrong) to deal in raw diamonds in this country - other stones you may sell of as many as you like. So, there is a difference in what is illegal and what is wrong. The idea that "wrong" is the opposite to "right" is also a fallacy. We humans, decide on the spur what is wrong and what is right, as it suits us - that's part of our existence.

You folks at Edwafin probably think you are right and have done nothing wrong, and that is probably true as well. You probably did everything by the book, to stay correct and abide by the law (an aside: there are now others trying to find instances where you did not follow the law so that they can get back at you. Isn't that a fun game?) We investors, on the other hand, are seriously inconvenienced by your rightful actions which, for convenience sake, I would call serious bungling ineptitude on a grand scale. Now that we want our money back (correctly according to the law), you are on your hind legs, and make us "wrong." Yes, it is seriously complicated and unique to our planet. Nevertheless, try your utmost to grasp these concepts.

As for the sales representatives. They are/were employees of Edwafin, paid by the company, and therefore representing the company (as you yourself imply by the word representative). On our planet the responsibility for anything the representatives do, is with the management of the company, in this case, ultimately, Mr P Stapleton and companions.

Then you make an interesting observation: "would we buy the investments if we really knew what they were." Are you suggesting that the representatives knew that Edwafin was going to fold, and never told us? Now, isn't that a new, original concept?

Anonymous 1b
Then today a second comment arrived from the outer reaches of the system, and I presumesubspecies:

from the same entity, or in any case similar

Presumably you invested into Edwafin Debentures (not dentures!) via a licensed financial advisor who fully explained the risks associated with this type of investment?

If this be the case you would have noted that it is a requirement of the FAIS Act that the name and contact detail of the Compliance Officer be disclosed.

An addition to your "dictionary"....academic - of no particular relevance

Note how it refers to my dentures, and then tells me it is of no particular relevance. Well, I would like it to know that my dentures are exceedingly important to me. Of course, we all know that it is already part of the dictionary on planet earth, so there was no addition just a Freudian slip (I'll explain that you at another time).
The word "presume" is also an interesting human invention, and it uses this word in exactly the same magical manner as it did the word "wrong". The word is used when you don't have all the facts, but want to make a point regardless. It is a form of convulsive logic: if you did "this and not that" you were wrong, however, if you didn't then I'm wrong but I am not explicitly saying that I would be wrong. In any case, then it doesn't matter anymore because I have already made my statement. Follow? i didn't think so.

• Advisors. I didn't invest in debentures via a licenced financial advisor, but via two representative staff members of Edwafin or Edwabond, I'm not sure and they never said.
• Risk. No, these Representatives did not warn me that Edwafin could fold, but showed me all the printed material attesting that it was a stable, profitable company.
• FAIS act. Here you've got me! I have no clue what you are getting at with the sentence about knowing who the compliance officer is/was, and what his contact details are. It has nothing to do with the previous two sentences or your argument in general. As far as I know it is the Compliance officer job to look after my interest, and not for me to have his address. What an absurd idea!
  

This latest comment from it surely didn't arrive here in tact, and how could it from so far away? The whole message flummoxed me somewhat, as I have no idea what the point is.I have a sneaking feeling, however, that it is trying to tell us once again that Edwafin did nothing wrong, and that the investors were at fault. We have admitted that Edwafin was not wrong, but seemingly have substandard individuals abusing our money.

I have one wish for it: that you get paid at the end of the month.