THE STOCK DETECTIVE
My second and last SI rant on this subject is a copy of my e-mail to THE STOCK DETECTIVE.
(Dear Stock Detective):
I believe that you have prematurely judged this stock and company and presented some factually inaccurate items as fact. You state that the PNLK has no clients and no website. Your article was dated the same day the PNLK site was scheduled to open; it has, in fact opened. The PR company associated with PNLK stated the exact day it would open - and it did open. In addition, they had a preview website at the same address during the time the final site was being prepared. So, your statement that no website exists is incorrect and was incorrect the same day you published the story. In addition, it was misleading because a site existed when you stated it did not. You would have been less suspect as having ulterior motives if you had merely waited one business day. Do you own stock in the "competitors" you list? BTW, how is YOUR (AXXS) stock doing and what is its history? The securities firm that reported a "sell" on this stick has a history of being charged with trading abuses by the SEC. Did you investigate their short position? Have you ever seen ANY securities company issue two statements in two days about a BB stock?
While you do a service in many cases, this treatment of this stock and its company is entirely unfair. It is starting the same way some of the other internet stocks began and has started working relationships with some major players. This information is available to anyone with a lick of sense and the ability to type "Y-A-H-O-O". To put credence in a third rate firm with a history of alleged abuses (also researchable, Mr. Detective) over published facts, compounded by impatience to wait one business day, smacks of extreme irresponsibility.
Finally, please change your the comment on the deputy contribution ("deputy dicks", as you call them) page to read, "Click here to read what some of our Deputies have to Say..." The plural of "deputy" is "deputies". "Deputy's" is a possessive of one deputy, so the phrase is both incorrect with regard to number and usage ("deputies" is a noun and "deputy's" is an adjective describing an object owned or possessed by a deputy).
Good luck in your endeavor to protect people from stock scams. Please consider putting the same attention to detail in your research and articles as you should in using correct grammar on your website. It will make you seem more intelligent and believable, despite whatever ulterior motives you may have. Until you do, I will have to let you use others as your deputy "dicks". |
