Bill and Melinda Gates are divorcing

glasso

glasso wrote: »

It's about the gates Foundation and Bill gates.

Can't get any more specific than that.

Well now you are getting specific.

Why is Bill so bad then? Seems largely philanthropic to me.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

Well now you are getting specific.

Why is Bill so bad then? Seems largely philanthropic to me.

I didn't say that he was bad.

obviously you didn't pay much attention to that post and the discussion with the other poster just before it.

Treppen

The divorce trick is a way of offloading/cashing out from Microsoft. It's no surprise that they used the same lawyers.

Normally someone like Bill or Jeff can't dump a tonne of shares in a company they are heavily invested in.. they can but it sends a signal to shareholders and markets that something is wrong.

The polite way to do it (to keep your corporate buddies happy) is to divorce.
Shares are then transferred to the wife and she can drop feed them all without having to declare it.

This comes from the Enron days where a director was "forced" to sell 300m in shares as part settlement in the divorce. A few months on the company is toast, he's cashed out... He got fined $30m, but hey that's only a small amount compared to 300m.

No surprise Elon Musk is switching his cash into crypto either...

Crash is coming folks, time to cash out now and buy back in again ... after we foot the bill of course.

biko

Treppen wrote: »

The divorce trick is a way of offloading/cashing out from Microsoft. It's no surprise that they used the same lawyers.

Normally someone like Bill or Jeff can't dump a tonne of shares in a company they are heavily invested in.. they can but it sends a signal to shareholders and markets that something is wrong.

That's an interesting take on things although it sound implausible. I suppose we'll see soon.

Pa ElGrande

Treppen wrote: »

The divorce trick is a way of offloading/cashing out from Microsoft. It's no surprise that they used the same lawyers.

. . . .
/QUOTE]

A more likely scenario is the marriage was over for a while and they remained together until their children were mature enough to stand on their own, now the nest is emptying they can both go their separate ways. That is why you see the business like approach to splitting up the assets in the most tax efficient way, Gates hired lawyer firm are tax are more financial specialists than family law.

silverharp

good one

https://twitter.com/NickAdamsinUSA/status/1390411750164549635

paw patrol

fvp4 wrote: »

Well now you are getting specific.

Why is Bill so bad then? Seems largely philanthropic to me.

Bill has very vocal views on climate, population, vaccines and loads more like getting us to eat less meat.
Not for him or his kids the nutritionally substandard alternatives.:rolleyes:

Bill waves wads of cash about including trinity college labs.
Now given Bill's mega cash splurge and his views on big global topics to you really think any of these beneficiaries are going to say he is wrong.
Yet that science/politics/big business will drive public policy - both global and local. the game rigged for Bill and his pet projects not rigged for you or me.


Now he associated with Epstein which he supporters have gone quiet about .
glasso?

FileNotFound

paw patrol wrote: »

Bill has very vocal views on climate, population, vaccines and loads more like getting us to eat less meat.
Not for him or his kids the nutritionally substandard alternatives.:rolleyes:

Bill waves wads of cash about including trinity college labs.
Now given Bill's mega cash splurge and his views on big global topics to you really think any of these beneficiaries are going to say he is wrong.
Yet that science/politics/big business will drive public policy - both global and local. the game rigged for Bill and his pet projects not rigged for you or me.


Now he associated with Epstein which he supporters have gone quiet about .
glasso?

You seem to have strong views on these things - so are you dangerous?

I mean if he is willing to finance public health initiatives that people choose to use by their own choice not sure how bad that is.

Most of the rich in US had some connection to epstein - doesn't mean they were involved in anything untoward, that's a very sad mindset of guilty by association. Like saying if you have a mate who is a criminal you are a criminal.

I wouldn't even judge you on actions of your family members but you judge others on far less???

His Pet projects are not for you, you live in the first world and have the luxury of wasting time here on conspiracies unlike those starving and dying he is trying to help.

Based on what i have read in this thread you are a greater danger to humanity than Bill..

Then again thats just opinion based on assumption.

paw patrol

FileNotFound wrote: »

You seem to have strong views on these things - so are you dangerous?

yes, I suppose I am - but my sphere of influence is limited to my immediate family and those within earshot of my drunken pontification.
Bill through his hard work ,good fortune and investment has a lot more ears than me , a mere IT functionary.
But that was my point.

FileNotFound wrote: »

I mean if he is willing to finance public health initiatives that people choose to use by their own choice not sure how bad that is.

when you say "by their own choice"...then we are in full agreement.
But when it drives public policy and laws...then...then we have issues.

FileNotFound wrote: »

Most of the rich in US had some connection to epstein - doesn't mean they were involved in anything untoward, that's a very sad mindset of guilty by association. Like saying if you have a mate who is a criminal you are a criminal. I wouldn't even judge you on actions of your family members but you judge others on far less???

After his conviction, though.
Pre conviction I fully accept that a "guilty by association" accusation is unfair.
But Gates met him after he was in jail more than once.
Also there is criminal and paedo / sex abuse. I'm no issue with people for criminal convictions tbh for the paedo/sex stuff doesn't sit right

FileNotFound wrote: »

His Pet projects are not for you, you live in the first world and have the luxury of wasting time here on conspiracies unlike those starving and dying he is trying to help.

Based on what i have read in this thread you are a greater danger to humanity than Bill..

Then again thats just opinion based on assumption.

there is merit to what you are saying. however he wants me in the first world to eat synthetic meat - so i beg to differ.

His plans on climate change to affect me. He currently utterings on covid and vaccinations affect me to a degree.

He wanted to block out the sun too to cool the earth. I've seen enough james bond or sci fi to know that isn't a good thing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/01/11/bill-gates-backed-climate-solution-gains-traction-but-concerns-linger/

Silentcorner

Does anyone know if the BMGF support media companies?

This would be an huge issue for me, it's hard to find data or sources that you can trust on this question, I have seen accounts that it does support media outlets including some in this country but I don't know how trustworthy those accounts are!

Clearly the media business model is in real trouble, if there are elements offering financial assistance to these organisation that would be something the general public would need to be aware of...

JP Liz V1

She'll clean him out

Timberrrrrrrr

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

She'll clean him out

I dont think she will you know, seems to be an amicable split, I suppose time will tell though.

PintOfView

paw patrol wrote: »

Bill has very vocal views on climate, population, vaccines and loads more like getting us to eat less meat.
Not for him or his kids the nutritionally substandard alternatives.:rolleyes:

Which of his views about climate, for eg., do you not agree with?
What is he saying about population? and which bit do you not agree with?

If he is concerned about population growth surely he is contributing
to it by helping large numbers of people get vaccinated, have clean water, etc?

Re eating less meat, what would be the issue with that, if the synthetic meat turns out to be just as nutritious?
And what makes you think he's a hypocrite, and wouldn't eat the synthetic meat?

paw patrol wrote: »

Bill waves wads of cash about including trinity college labs.
Now given Bill's mega cash splurge and his views on big global topics to you really think any of these beneficiaries are going to say he is wrong.
Yet that science/politics/big business will drive public policy - both global and local. the game rigged for Bill and his pet projects not rigged for you or me.

I can't deny that the recipients of donations are less likely to bite the hand that feeds them,
and it's probably not a good development that individuals have such a large say in the spending of billions.

Having said that, some individuals do a lot of good, and may achieve better results than simply
giving money to some governments around the world where a percentage risks being pilfered.

Also I don't think it's realistic to think that the recipients will be influencing public policy in a malign way.
Do you have any examples of this?

paw patrol wrote: »

Now he associated with Epstein which he supporters have gone quiet about .
glasso?

Yes, on checking, Gates did seem to meet Epstein after Epstein was convicted.
If Gates knew about the conviction then it was very poor judgement.
However Gates has denied knowing about what Epstein was doing, so it's not conclusive.

When researching Epstein it turns out he was also well acquainted with a recent ex president of the US!
Would you draw any conclusions from that association?

Kewreeuss

My thread was closed because it was insufficiently clear. I posted too quickly and couldn’t figure out how to amend the title. Then it was closed before I had time to respond. So here goes again, clearer, I hope:
There was an opinion piece in the Indo this morning which I thought was lazy cliched and silly.
Bill and Melinda Gate’s split proves money can’t buy happiness
It doesn’t prove anything of the sort.
They have been married 35 years. How does the writer of the piece think they have been living for all those years. Sitting in separate bedrooms counting their money?
Why does the writer think money has anything got do to with the breakup?
And why so patronising to us who read the headline, in assuming we think money buys happiness?

paw patrol

PintOfView wrote: »

Which of his views about climate, for eg., do you not agree with?
What is he saying about population? and which bit do you not agree with?

Does it matter? I'm here for Bill Gates not to debate those issues.. The point is he has too much influence which he uses by flashing his cash globally.
I don't agree with him on a some of the stuff his ideas sound great though but his application less so.
he did want to dim the sun....I've raised that twice in this thread i think.
not one support has replied.

PintOfView wrote: »

If he is concerned about population growth surely he is contributing
to it by helping large numbers of people get vaccinated, have clean water, etc?

depends on the vaccine tbh. clean water is good.
Bill influence and power ....less so

PintOfView wrote: »

Re eating less meat, what would be the issue with that, if the synthetic meat turns out to be just as nutritious?
And what makes you think he's a hypocrite, and wouldn't eat the synthetic meat?

one cos red meat is really good for you and the notion of blaming it for climate change is just lies. there is no other word for it.
eat synthetic meat if you want but not me . I've yet to try food that is better than the real thing.

the rich who preach tend to be hypocrite. Take climate change. Time and again it is shown the elite wealthy contribute much more to climate issues than the average joe...but who gets the lecture....the western people...
certainly not china ...or Bill Gates :pac:

PintOfView wrote: »

I can't deny that the recipients of donations are less likely to bite the hand that feeds them,
and it's probably not a good development that individuals have such a large say in the spending of billions.

Having said that, some individuals do a lot of good, and may achieve better results than simply
giving money to some governments around the world where a percentage risks being pilfered.

Also I don't think it's realistic to think that the recipients will be influencing public policy in a malign way.
Do you have any examples of this?

why yes I do.
Lets park Gates. and we can talk about funded studies in the USA caused universities to publish food guidelines in the 1980s demonizing dietary fat.
We could laugh and say it's the USA but we ended up on that diet too.
Further back smoking was good for you too.
Who funds the studies is of utmost importance.

Less serious (i'm into the gym so I see this) a supplement company will fund a study showing an ingredient (or which they own the patent) will increase muscle size, shread fat etc...and the reality is when others (non funded) look at it, it's hardly any benefit. But the product will go out there and the lads (including me sadly) will throw their cash at it

PintOfView wrote: »

Yes, on checking, Gates did seem to meet Epstein after Epstein was convicted.
If Gates knew about the conviction then it was very poor judgement.
However Gates has denied knowing about what Epstein was doing, so it's not conclusive.

At some stage you gotta wonder if that is reasonable
Given the army of PR and admin Gates has ....I can't buy that.
Did he not speak to his wife ?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/melinda-gates-was-meeting-with-divorce-lawyers-since-2019-to-end-marriage-with-bill-gates-11620579924

The couple hasn’t said what prompted the split. One source of concern for Ms. Gates was her husband’s dealings with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to the people and a former employee of their charity, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Gates’s concerns about the relationship dated as far back as 2013, the former employee said.

PintOfView wrote: »

When researching Epstein it turns out he was also well acquainted with a recent ex president of the US!
Would you draw any conclusions from that association?

yes I would , Clinton went to the island and ditched his secret service
which is how he got caught cos he couldn't hide those records.
he is dirt but tbh he was scum with his sexual behaviour long before that.

Trump did ban him from the resort in Florida and there is no evidence of association post conviction. I'm a big fan of trump but if he socialised with Epstein post jail he is also dirt.

Timberrrrrrrr

paw patrol wrote: »

Does it matter? I'm here for Bill Gates not to debate those issues.. The point is he has too much influence which he uses by flashing his cash globally.
I don't agree with him on a some of the stuff his ideas sound great though but his application less so.
he did want to dim the sun....I've raised that twice in this thread i think.
not one support has replied.




depends on the vaccine tbh. clean water is good.
Bill influence and power ....less so




one cos red meat is really good for you and the notion of blaming it for climate change is just lies. there is no other word for it.
eat synthetic meat if you want but not me . I've yet to try food that is better than the real thing.

the rich who preach tend to be hypocrite. Take climate change. Time and again it is shown the elite wealthy contribute much more to climate issues than the average joe...but who gets the lecture....the western people...
certainly not china ...or Bill Gates :pac:



why yes I do.
Lets park Gates. and we can talk about funded studies in the USA caused universities to publish food guidelines in the 1980s demonizing dietary fat.
We could laugh and say it's the USA but we ended up on that diet too.
Further back smoking was good for you too.
Who funds the studies is of utmost importance.

Less serious (i'm into the gym so I see this) a supplement company will fund a study showing an ingredient (or which they own the patent) will increase muscle size, shread fat etc...and the reality is when others (non funded) look at it, it's hardly any benefit. But the product will go out there and the lads (including me sadly) will throw their cash at it



At some stage you gotta wonder if that is reasonable
Given the army of PR and admin Gates has ....I can't buy that.
Did he not speak to his wife ?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/melinda-gates-was-meeting-with-divorce-lawyers-since-2019-to-end-marriage-with-bill-gates-11620579924




yes I would , Clinton went to the island and ditched his secret service
which is how he got caught cos he couldn't hide those records.
he is dirt but tbh he was scum with his sexual behaviour long before that.

Trump did ban him from the resort in Florida and there is no evidence of association post conviction. I'm a big fan of trump but if he socialised with Epstein post jail he is also dirt.

On the whole "Gates wants to block out/dim the sun"

It's been debunked.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/7310134002

Post misrepresents a Harvard project Gates partially funds

The post refers to Harvard's Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment, or SCoPEx, which is financially backed by Gates. But this claim, like other reports, misrepresents the nature of the project.

The project revolves around the concept of geoengineering, large-scale efforts to reduce the effects of climate change – usually temporarily – on oceans, soils and atmosphere.

At its core, SCoPEx seeks to better understand the efficacy and risks of solar geoengineering. To do so, scientists need to determine whether there are aerosols that could reduce or eliminate ozone loss without increasing the chance of other risks.

Our rating: False

The claim that Gates is working on a way to block the sun's rays to prevent global warming is FALSE, based on our research. Gates is one of SCoPEx's funders, but he is not participating in the project's research.

Additionally, the project is not working to block or dim the sun. Rather, the project seeks to understand the potential risks of geoengineering.

ohnonotgmail

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

On the whole "Gates wants to block out/dim the sun"

It's been debunked.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/7310134002

so he isn't building a massive metal disc to block out the sun? what a useless git he is. all that money and he doesn't spend it properly.

Timberrrrrrrr

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so he isn't building a massive metal disc to block out the sun? what a useless git he is. all that money and he doesn't spend it properly.

Monty Burns would be so disappointed In him.

paw patrol

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

On the whole "Gates wants to block out/dim the sun"

It's been debunked.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/7310134002

I love how you say it was debunked...as if it's a made up lie or rumour somebody invented.

you think on boards i'm going to go into the precise nuance of a science proposal of such magnitude. seriously? you need to get out more. I'm here to discuss Bill Gates ,not the minute detail of his experiments?

Dim the sun is a catch all phrase also used for dramatic effect - simpsons tie in and also it's common vernacular - you know so more people would recognise what we are talking about.
The notion that you thought I mean he was actually trying to "dim the sun"...:pac:

you denying he was funding a study to throw a load of dust (or chalk) into the atmosphere? from Sweden.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so he isn't building a massive metal disc to block out the sun? what a useless git he is. all that money and he doesn't spend it properly.

oh right. well done.

johnny come latelys to the thread with their one line gags completely missing the entire point.
hilarious

maccored

oul bill had 64 odd billion when he started giving it all away. now he has over twice that much, who'd have thunk you could make that kind of money by giving it all away .... (bill did obviously)

ohnonotgmail

paw patrol wrote: »

oh right. well done.

johnny come latelys to the thread with their one line gags completely missing the entire point.
hilarious

I posted on this thread before you did. Facts are clearly not your strongpoint.

ohnonotgmail

maccored wrote: »

oul bill had 64 odd billion when he started giving it all away. now he has over twice that much, who'd have thunk you could make that kind of money by giving it all away .... (bill did obviously)

The majority of his money is in microsoft stock. that stock has been rising faster than he can give it away. Why do you find that so difficult to understand?

maccored

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The majority of his money is in microsoft stock. that stock has been rising faster than he can give it away. Why do you find that so difficult to understand?

rising faster than he can give away? hilarious stuff altogether. a key click is pretty fast

ohnonotgmail

maccored wrote: »

rising faster than he can give away? hilarious stuff altogether. a key click is pretty fast

so you do find it difficult to understand. nice of you to confirm.

astrofool

paw patrol wrote: »

you denying he was funding a study to throw a load of dust (or chalk) into the atmosphere? from Sweden.

Would love to see details on this?

Was he funding a study to see what the effect of it would be (good to know the answer) or a plan to actually put it into effect?

ohnonotgmail

astrofool wrote: »

Would love to see details on this?

Was he funding a study to see what the effect of it would be (good to know the answer) or a plan to actually put it into effect?

A very small scale test of the concept was planned. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/23/fact-check-bill-gates-not-trying-block-suns-rays/7310134002/

more detailed info here if you are interested https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex#h.p_Xru29Emo-OMw

Timberrrrrrrr

paw patrol wrote: »

I love how you say it was debunked...as if it's a made up lie or rumour somebody invented.

you think on boards i'm going to go into the precise nuance of a science proposal of such magnitude. seriously? you need to get out more. I'm here to discuss Bill Gates ,not the minute detail of his experiments?

Dim the sun is a catch all phrase also used for dramatic effect - simpsons tie in and also it's common vernacular - you know so more people would recognise what we are talking about.
The notion that you thought I mean he was actually trying to "dim the sun"...:pac:

you denying he was funding a study to throw a load of dust (or chalk) into the atmosphere? from Sweden.




oh right. well done.

johnny come latelys to the thread with their one line gags completely missing the entire point.
hilarious

Maybe read more about the experiment, and how Gates has donated funds not to that experiment specifically. Or just keep scaremongering, either way I get a giggle.

joseywhales

I didn't know making money was a moral failing, isn't that what we are all trying to do?

Also the block out the sun thing is ridiculous. He and others fund a study in which they proposed an experiment in one small swedish town, which they rejected and it wasn't attempted. If you are worried about that you might also be concerned about the large hadron collider where scientists are colliding particles at the speed of light to discover the origins of the universe! I mean personally I believe all scientific discovery is a positive, I don't understand why a small experiment for a finite period in a small town in Sweden is such a frightening prospect.

Timberrrrrrrr

joseywhales wrote: »

I didn't know making money was a moral failing, isn't that what we are all trying to do?

Also the block out the sun thing is ridiculous. He and others fund a study in which they proposed an experiment in one small swedish town, which they rejected and it wasn't attempted. If you are worried about that you might also be concerned about the large hadron collider where scientists are colliding particles at the speed of light to discover the origins of the universe! I mean personally I believe all scientific discovery is a positive, I don't understand why a small experiment for a finite period in a small town in Sweden is such a frightening prospect.

Ah yes but that doesn't sound as scary as

Does it matter? I'm here for Bill Gates not to debate those issues.. The point is he has too much influence which he uses by flashing his cash globally.
I don't agree with him on a some of the stuff his ideas sound great though but his application less so.
he did want to dim the sun....I've raised that twice in this thread i think.
not one support has replied.

astrofool

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

A very small scale test of the concept was planned. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/23/fact-check-bill-gates-not-trying-block-suns-rays/7310134002/

more detailed info here if you are interested https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex#h.p_Xru29Emo-OMw

OK, so complete hyperbole from Paw Patrol.