So, let me make sure I understand what you are saying. You say that 99.9 of all micro's are scams, and I should just accept that they are liars. When they lie, I should not be surprised, nor should I voice my displeasure. I should just say it's part of the game, and move on.
Well, that's just not the way I do it. I do not assume that they are all scams until proven otherwise. How is that good policy? How would any company ever prove otherwise? By getting off the pinks? How about EnRon? They weren't pink, but they were a huge scam. I deal with each company just like I do people...on an individual basis. I'm not going to assume a company is a scam just because it's a flamingo, any more than I am going to condemn a person by the color of their skin. What counts most in my book, is transparency and honest communication with the shareholders. That does not matter if they are a flamingo or a blue chip. I take them one day at a time, and evaluate as I go. As long as they are fair and honest, then there is no problem, if they abuse their shareholders, then I will voice my displeasure in the hopes that I will be heard by management through either word of mouth, or pps. They are not going to have it both ways. I'm not going to lend support to stock by even mentioning it's ticker on a thread, without reserving the right to do the same in reverse.
So, does that mean I just shack up with any old stock that crosses my path? Well, no. I do the same as anyone else, by making a decision based upon a preponderance of the evidence on the front end. We cannot know beyond a shadow of a doubt if a stock is a scam or not, but the evidence should point one way or another. Now, I have made plenty of money on LWFK/SLJB, and I am up good on it, but I made my re-entry because I was swayed by the PR's that came out that said that did the AF's, and they would be released. But now that it has not happened, one has to wonder how it is that they made such statements if they were not at all true. Everyone seems to think that they would be thrown under the jail if it was all a ruse. How so? The PR's themselves tell you to re-word what is written. They tell you that if SLJB says they have done audits, and they are going to be released, then actually you can make that into they might have done audits, and they could be released. I would think even a public defender could make a rock solid defense out of that.
Also, I did not say that I had never seen such a release. I said that none of the companies I checked used such riley wording. Do you think that LBWR would do such? Do you think that LBWR would release a PR saying that it has a contract with Transocean, and it will start in the next month, but in reality mean that it might? Please. That SLJB disclaimer shows intent, and we all know it. I'm guilty that I did not read it, but will make sure to check the evidence better in the future.
Furthermore, I think that if you are going to make an argument, then you should get your terms right. You keep talking about micro's when SLJB is not even one. They might have once been, but now they are not even close ~~> 800 mil x .017 = 13,600,000 . So, they are a nano cap, just like almost every other stock you are talking about. If you are discriminately going to label something as being 99.9% scam, then probably you better change it to 99.9 % of all NANO's are scams. I think you would be very hard pressed to convict 99.9 % all of the stocks in the market cap range of 50 mil to 300 mil as being a scam. Your accusation of such is absurd.
GodBless-ND
creede |
