Yeah, well, I wan’t accusing you of perpetrating any sham.
And while you may object to my choice of words, the bits you quote from the NYT and BI also suggest that the purpose behind these actions is pretty much to try and deceive the public at large that CA has gone away, when actually it seems pretty certain that they’re really just going to continue under another name. So I was just boiling that down to a single word, which I still feel is, while perhaps not (yet) fully corrobarated, still arguably accurate: They’re almost certainly trying to perpetrate something on the public, and I still think that “something” is pretty much… a sham. What would you call it?
I didn’t know one had to extensively quote the article; text corresponding to what you posted from the NYT and BI is readily available at the El Reg link I posted, just a mouse-click away. (And as for reliability of sources, I think “The Vulture” is every bit as reliable as the NYT, and vastly superior to Business Insider.)