< I believe the claim is stock promotion fraud.>
Bill has alleged a "stock promotion fraud", but in doing so has directly accused the management of "fraud".
beta.siliconinvestor.com
Also, how should one construe "fraudulent technology". He has also used "fruad" to describe other aspects of GumTech, but in the interest of not rehashing, I'll leave those out.
<Secondly, disagreeing with your opinion of a company does not make it a lie.>
You're right, but I have provided more evidence that a stock promotion fraud doesn't exist than Bill has provided to support his allegation. I'm not going to rehash those reasons.
<Wow, so other people dislike him. Guess what, you've got a lot of people here who dislike you..>
Well of course some of you here don't like me. I refute the nonsense using easy to understand rationale. I don't use cyrptic and ambiguous words that normally have negative connotations. Bill, on the other hand, isn't liked by some because of his low regard for maintaining good ethics. He comes across like a scam artist to most unbiased people.
<Did you ever think maybe you made the list because some folks enjoy hot air?>
Hot air doesn't last for three years.
<You know, folks here would probably stop 'bashing' GUMM if you'd quit shilling it.>
Again, you have it backwards. I don't initiate conversations here. I only respond to questions asked of me or if I see something that I disagree with. Case in point, what is the purpose of Bill posting an increase to his short position in GUMM every day for the last three days? The stock hasn't moved. There hasn't been any news. Nothing justifies this other than spite or to continue the bashing, albeit with few words. If he's shorting more because he's pissed off that three concerned shareholders refute his nonsense, then good luck! |
