I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth, I’m literally quoting past posts that seem rather contradictory. I don’t care what we talk about here, but what I’d quoted sounds like moving the goal posts of what the problem is. That’s all.
I don’t need any “sense of running a business,” the implication of what the brand manager is pretty clear- they have probably had no choice but to work with Joe and Dana, the people who owned Anovos, in order to get access to other employees, customer info, and manufacturing info. But there’s an important difference between inferring something from what is said (or unsaid), and hearing something directly stated.
They did not “admit” to Dana or Joe being involved. Is it extremely likely that Joe and Dana were or are involved to some degree? Sure. But is that an admission? No. Suggestion or implying are one thing, “admission” is something else. If you have something that proves how they are involved, that’s one thing. But a brand manager saying “we are working with former Anovos employees” when asked several times about their involvement does not equal a confirmation that they are involved, or have been involved.
That’s all I’m saying. I don’t blame you or anyone for not wanting Anovos involved in any way, if that’s how you feel. There are good reasons for wanting distance from them, though in my view it’s essential to work with them at least initially. All I’m saying is that we don’t know these things definitively, and saying that we do leads to suppositions being repeated as facts.