OK, Bob. You've finally coaxed me out of the lurker mode. Why do you insist on continuing to post press releases that are one, two, or more months old? Are you trying to convince yourself that everything will be fine? Or are you just tired and want to post something, but anything more than "Copy" and "Paste" is too difficult. That kind of repetitive posting does not lend credence to your hypothesis that HITT is a bona fide company and, thus, worthy of investor support. I've seen several questions on this thread that are honest questions and deserving of an answer. Since you appear to be the primary supporter, and possess the most knowledge of HITT insider thinking, I'll reiterate them. Please respond with something other than a post of their July press release, their June press release or other data that is non-responsive. If you don't know, PLEASE, just say so. That is no crime.
1. Is their any evidence of any appraisal of the LFT assets (stamps)?
Related, is their any third party evidence that the stamps actually exist, as they appear to have surfaced several times in recent history only to be discredited. This from the "bashers" who have historical cites that appear to be genuine, at least as genuine as many of yours.
2. Related to 1, is there any evidence that LFT has any means of paying for their current obligations to HITT, as well as their future commitments? Also, why on God's green earth, would someone pay what LFT has "committed" for stock, when they can buy shares on the open market for a ton less? By the way, has the written commitment ever been published, along with evidence of their ability to fulfill it?
3. If the Bloomberg story was false and misleading (according to a post you have posted many, many times), why were they, or the author, not named in the lawsuit? The thrust of the lawsuit appears to be that the named defendants willfully and maliciously repeated the article. If I'm wrong, please let me know, but that's what I got from reading one of your posts.
4. Again, from one of your posts, it appears that HITT is saying that the Bloomberg article was false because the warranties made in connection with the merger were made a few days before DR came on board as an officer and director. There was obviously a plan to have him formally join at that time, IMO, and he was the major shareholder. Doesn't that sound a little like a very thin technicality that they are hanging their hat on?
5. I have visited their site, and find it, at least for me, border line useless as a search engine. It appears to me to be an advertising page, geared more to selling new ads than anything else. Am I missing something? Do people really log on to HITT's engine to view ads? I get tons of them in my mailbox everyday - and there a enough on, what I consider to be REAL, search engines to satisfy my craving for ads.
Come on, Bob. Please let me know what your honest thoughts are on the above questions. This is not bashing, these are real questions about the viability of a publicly traded company. I guess when I come out the lurker phase, I REALLY come out. I apologize to all for the length, but I feel much better now. :-) |
