To All:
Statement # 1 made by Gary in response to post # 2306
Gary's Statement:
I beg your pardon I am entitled by the constitution of the USA to do what I want to do and make a living anyway.. There is no law what so ever that states I cannot proof writings or write for a living nor learn an industry and making a living at it.
Dusty: Excuse me but the above statement indicates compensation. However, there is a thing called public disclosure. Perhaps, I missed the public disclosure, but shareholder involvement for pay or otherwise should be disclosed to the public early on; not after the fact. I feel confident other investors would tend to agree.
Statement # 2 Gary
I have not been paid nor have I received compensation at all.
Dusty:
This appears to be a contradicting statement on your part. See Statement # 1. Your response indicates you MAY have been compensated in some way, by some companies. Is this true? If so has it been publicly disclosed? This statement tends to indicate you are making a living from your involvement with one or more companies. Shareholder involvement for pay or otherwise should be disclosed to the public. If a public disclosure has been made; please accept my most humble apology, I missed it.
Statement # 3 Gary:
I hold a ton of stock and I have not insided traded and EVERYONE knows that becuase of my trading logs.
Dusty:
It appears this statement is not exactly accurate. I and most likely many shareholders, have not been made privy to the trading logs of which you speak. Perhaps, you would be kind enough to post them and let the rest of us decide?
Statement # 4 Gary
Then you are absolutely clueless because 99% of the companies do use their "private Investors" to do such a function and the difference if I want to I can be paid for it since it is a service I can provide when I want to.
Dusty:
Excuse me sir, but the key word was <legit> companies. IMHO, Midland has not as yet earned this distinction. I believe your statement of "99% of the companies do use their "private investors" to do such function" is possibly inaccurate or misleading. Would you have us believe 99 % of the public traded companies use private shareholders to draft or edit company press releases? I think not. It is true that company related individuals do own stock but these person(s) are regulated by law. Any person(s) who has access to inside information while performing a company function have restrictions placed against them in how they conduct their business of buying and selling company stock. These individuals are required by law to file proper notice of "intent" to buy or sell.
If you are referring to postings on the internet you are most likely correct. I was and am <specifically> referencing official company press releases that are released via a paid, third party such as Business Wire or other agency.
Statement # 5 Gary
Gary:
I beg your pardon I am entitled by the constitution of the USA to do what I want to do and make a living anyway.. There is no law what so ever that states I cannot proof writings or write for a living nor learn an industry and making a living at it.
Dusty: This too is a contradictory statement,"there is no law what so ever that states I cannot proof writings or write for a living and make a living at it."
Dusty:
Your statement tends to indicate you MAY have been or hope to be compensated in some fashion, which you further state is your right. However, there is something called public disclosure. Perhaps, persons
in this position are not required by law to disclose the true nature of their company involvement; surely there is a moral one especially in the Internet arena.
Statement # 6 Gary:
By doing that I was able to get the home phone numbers of Mark especially. Now you can try all you want to but you are wrong and if more investors, which are by the way would proof releases then they might get phone numbers
Dusty:
This too is incoherent or disconnected at best. However, it appears to be stating that if other investors would proof read press releases they would be privileged to the personal phone numbers of company insiders.
Excuse me again sir, but in order to proof read any company press release <before> the fact would require one to have access to prior knowledge before it is released to the public. To the best of my knowledge this practice is not engaged in by most companies. Your statement indicated that any shareholder could have requested a copy of any press release prior to them becoming public knowledge. Is this correct?
Statement # 7 Gary
The only cockroach here is your self slithering out of the corner on the side that got caught. You think you have a case then make it. You want to harm this stock I ask why? The only cockroach here is your self slithering out of the corner on the side that got caught. You think you have a case then make it. You want to harm this stock I ask why? You think you are so smart when in fact every conversation I have ever had with you you have proven to me you are totally clueless about the market, trading, or anything what so ever to with business in general.
Dusty: I am one of the many who are on the side that got caught; as you state. You have stated you too are an innocent shareholder; does this make you a slithering cockroach too?
As to having intentions of harming the stock or the company; I have no intention of doing harm. Just the opposite; I still own every share I ever purchased. The harm that has and is continuing to come to the company, is being handled quite nicely by the Investor Relations person and others of the same persuasion with the continual indignities that are constantly hurled at all who speak out on this thread.
Gary's statement part of # 7:
"You think you are so smart when in fact every conversation I have ever had with you you have proven to me you are totally clueless about the market, trading, or anything what so ever to with business in general."
Dusty: This statement appears to be highly degrading and a personal attack. This is of course what you sir are most famous for. Is this behavior indicative of all Midland representatives; or just you?
Your style of addressing other individuals in a derogatory, inflammatory and character assassinating fashion, strongly denotes the lack of proper and professional communication skills.
As a "private investor" I feel you are clearly not representing Midland in a favorable light.
How can any investor ever expect to see a legitimate company come into this shell? Unless and until they appoint a qualified and competent spokesperson who can and will address all questions and comments with decorum, dignity and respect for all, it will never happen.
As a private investor; anyone who wishes to debase themselves by lashing out at others in an undignified fashion is free to do so, but not as the company spokesperson, in the role of Investor Relations.
Dusty
|
