You're not seeing the full picture, Aleta. Let me explain it to you.
You see, all it takes is a well-connected SIM executive or two, who just happen to be well-connected to those who make editorial and copy decisions at Wired. Again, remember, the first article was favorable. Then the SIM staff got sacked and every article thereafter--including one not even about Zulu (don't forget the hatchet job in the Ziff-Davis piece, where the second half was devoted to Hayton) were negative.
Now whether you choose to recognize or admit the cumulative effect or not, all that was needed following Wired's slam--for the slam to be successful--(and do keep in mind Republicans slur Democrats and vice versa)--was to have someone such as yourself, Jon Tara and others who are willing, over and over again, to print negative Zulu information that, in reality, is based on one source only (Wired). Imagine this same activity repeated on every stock thread and there you have the cummlative effect:
The following is the kind of language which you've repeated over and over again. It is also the kind of language that has hurt innocent investors.
"Had Pat Hayton not had the past he has had and were this not a penny
stock, you wouldn't see the problems you're having here. Unfortunately
it is a penny and therefore subject to doubt on the part of a large
section of investors. It's not the only penny that is having this
problem. Anyone involved financially in a penny that has a shaded
background can create problems for that stock. Just read some of the
other penny threads.
"[you quote me here] 'Together, they have knowingly or unknowingly blended into a force that has kept this stock down.'
"Nothing anyone says here or on other threads can keep the price of this stock down without the help of Zulu-tek or Hayton. Zulu-tek needs to stop the revolving door on management and get their financials out.
Hayton needs to respond to the Wired articles in an honest and
forthright manner. If there is no fuel PT, there is no fire."
Me writing live now:
Now, Aleta, you are not the CEO. You are not even a shareholder. You cannot tell the company what to do. You cannot let your will--particularly where you own now shares, except for quick daytrades at best--create the standard for others to judge by.
I hate to write this, but more and more I'm coming to realize that you're a sophisticated, housewife-sympathy-playing version of David Sirk.
You strung out for months on this thread pretending to be a middle roader, as long as you could. I challenged you on this, and you finally admitted you weren't a middle-roader.
Now, you're an outright sputter vehicle spewing nothing but anti-Hayton dribble, all based on ONE SOURCE OF INFORMATION (Wired--go back and read paragraph two of this posting).
Aleta, you're wrong. And your attitude and writing, cummlative with others, is wrecking havoc on other people's investments. Please quit, or at a minimum prove to us on this thread that you have corrobative evidence on Hayton that is beyond hearsay or the product of Wired and Stock Detective piggyback slams.
Sorry to be so hard on you. But you've been getting away with this for too long! It's time to move on productively and not keep this thread creeped and seeped in prejudice. Were a significant shareholder, instead of a daytrader (one who plays for quick advantage), your view would hold more weight. It does not. Finale.
PS: I know you made one phone call to the IR and came back with a favorable report. However, I'm willing to bet you were in the midst of a daytrade action when you did same. |
