churn beneath the radar of most, page-49

"- your refusal to address serious potential ramifications associated with the Nominee Accounts, as per the historical precedents realted to the forum,"

Nev,

With respect you haven't proven anything in relation to the nominee accounts and CDU. Your argument is a typical example of affirming the consequent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

It is not for Zzedzz to disprove an argument that hasn't been proved correct in the first place.

e.g. of Affirming the Consequent
1. If CDU is in play, then will be on the CDU share register
2. is on the share register
3. Therefore CDU is in play

"An argument of this form is invalid"

I don't make the rules. Sorry.