<< ...What he states in those press or publicity releases should then be factual. Isn't that correct ?? >>
Tom,
Agreed. He was also the same spokesperson who got enmeshed in (started?) the initial brouhaha about 77% market penetration in the second year. So again, I am not defending the veracity of his statements. Frankly, I don't believe anything anybody at the company or their IR firm says anymore anyway, nor do I care. I have no position in the stock.
Look, my point is this: "Pluvia" repeatedly claimed that he had inside information (hmmm, another angle to discuss with the SEC) - material facts not disclosed to all shareholders - regarding Premier's failure to ship any lasers before July 28, 1997. He claims he obtained this information from a Premier Laser employee - in particular, a member of Premier's sales staff.
I don't believe him until he gives up the source.
And if he does not truly have such a source, then he has knowingly published false information, and thus, has no First Amendment rights in regards to those statements.
Of course, in his typical truth-twisting way, he now tries to cite an officer of a competitor (LaPoint at BioLase) as his source for his claims.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID IN HIS POSTS. He claimed the information came from a Premier Laser employee, giving his claim greater weight and making it more fear-inspiring. If he said the information had come from a competitor at that time, shareholders would have likely discounted his claim.
Louis |
