THE REAL DEAL ON THE "ARTICLE" (read below):
If you can't perceive an inherent negative bias in that "article", then you need to have someone read for you.
To begin, note the way the writer describes EDIG's irrefutably meteoric rise from .18 to at one point $3.00 (a 1600% gain in less than one year). He writes: "The stock spent much of last year wobbling around under a dime, started warming up in mid-April of this year and nudged up near 3". That's how he describes a rocket-like 1600% gain: "wobbling, warming up, nudged". Never has anyone in the history of business writing made a 1600% rise sound so terrible.
Next, of all the ways to say EDIG was a smaller-sized company, the writer chose to call it a "flea". He could have just said it was a "smaller" company, or cited the market cap, or call it a "growth stage" firm, but he chose to call it a "flea". That doesn't sound unbiased to me.
Furthermore, note the manner in which he quickly and dismissively concedes EDIG's strong points, while he copiously and aggressively focuses on any of EDIG's supposed weakness, real or imagined.
I could go on and on about this purposeful hatchet job, but re-read it for yourself. Nothing about it demonstrates a level of integrity, a sense of fairness, or a commitment to truth. If anything, it reminds me of the old fuddy-duddies who used to write angry articles years ago about the rise of other "fleas" like Microsoft, Intel, and Apple. Are those "fleas" still around?
I think so. |
