No, he's collateral damage. You have to accept some losses for a win.
And the war is on The Man trying to silence The People. Freedom of speech, and open access to knowledge, that's what we're fighting, and Staeve's business is dying, for.
So why did you say the war was on steave?
Mean what you say and day what you mean.
I'm terribly sorry, I missed out a comma. I should've written "THERE'S A WAR ON, STAEVE!"
I shall go back and rectify forthwith and withforth. Or with commas. And since I have plenty, have a few now, on me. k?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Your 'also' implies that trustable was used correctly.
If something is trustable it is capable of being placed in trust - like when an historic building is gifted to the National Trust for safekeeping.
You actually asked if the new/other organisations were capable of being put in trust [in a rather awkward and Americanised/Business Speak way], rather than what I suspect you thought you were saying, that you wondered if it was wise to place ones trust in them.