[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its an insult to Nat that you'll assume that he'd be taken advantaged of by AP. /arg.

[/ QUOTE ]

no one reasonable is saying he is gonna be "taken advantage of." rather, we think he will simply be ineffective bc he doesnt have the resources, skills and experience to conduct a full audit and bc ap will not give him full disclosure. he will see what ap wants him to see and ap will give rehearsed nonimplicating answers.

regardless, im all for him going down there. its better than nothing and while its unlikely he uncovers hard evidence he will certainly be able to pick up on some aspects of the operation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to think that Nat, consulting with many extremely smart and experienced people here and that he knows personally, would be able to judge exactly how effective he had been.

If they stonewall, fine. Nat comes back and says, "Nothing to report. They stonewalled." Which I happen to think would be valuable information in and of itself, and what is there to lose?

That AP could somehow spin his visit for PR purposes, when he is going as a *private individual* who is explicity *not* representing 2+2 Publishing or anyone else in an official capacity?

The cluelessness here baffles me. Honestly. All I can hope is that you and mtbktard haven't really thought about this. Please do so now. Or go away. Or keep repeating your silly position. Whatever.