[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Why has AP insisted that Nat sign an NDA saying he cannot reveal who was using account #363? WTF?

Is it possibly anything to do with the fact that account 363 was being used from Scott Tom's home IP address...?

The cover-up has become worse than the offence. Deleted hand histories, press releases so full of lies they hurt your eyes to read, and all because AP is still protecting the people (yes, plural) who, it claims, swindled the company out of $1.6m.

Bullsh*t.

(BTW, Nat - any information you had already heard, from any source, whether you knew it to be correct or not at the time, is NOT covered by the NDA.)

[/ QUOTE ]
LuckyMux,

I appreciate your efforts in this whole thing, but I am bothered by your lacking of reading comprehension here. That is not what I said about #363. It has nothing to do with who was using it or what the name was on the account, but simply which account name was connected to #363.

Please be more careful in the future about stuff like this.

-Nat