Colleen After reading your response post to me, I have found it necessary to respond in the following manner. I hope after this response you will understand what I was trying to say. Let's start this from the top.
I said:
Yes from what I can see the company may have had a few earlier problems with PR's, Maybe poor advise by some of this threads early classic pumpers!
You surmised:
Which PR's do you think were poorly written, and on the advice of these classic pumpers?
Here is the problem with your assumptions:
I was speaking in general about a period in the history of this company when I believe that a full time PR agency would have been a good idea. I NEVER pointed to a specific PR as anything other than a PR. Nothing more, nothing less. Any conclusion to the contrary is making more out of it than there ever was.
I said:
In My Personal OPION! The CEO was new to the owning a company with shares and was maybe? A little to trusting with investors who were really those Classic Pump and Dumpers! Yes and they know who they are!! They may not post, But bet your A$$ they read this thread every day!
You surmised:
Who are these people? And you're saying they're still involved with the company? I would appreciate knowing who these people are as I've gotten sucked up into another stock touted by paid promoters who never identified themselves prior to the SEC's ruling on such matters of disclosure.
And how long have you known that these people have exercised such control over the CEO? Who told you this, the CEO?
Here is the problem with your assumptions:
What I said was that this CEO so far as I am concerned is an honest man who takes folks at their word. Due to the wrongful acts of some people who were after any shred of information that they could get, he probably released information that would be better had it been kept confidential. As I understand what probably happened in those days, one of our famous pumper-dumpers, maybe Rosy? or perhaps some of the early investors that called the company and immediately started using that info for their own gain, and not as general information to be shared with the public.
Maybe not as John or any one else in the front office said it. He or they were possibly misquoted, their words were maybe twisted, and in a vein that makes a spy novelist cringe, his good natured sharing of information was turned on him and this young company.
I NEVER said that anyone was a paid pumper/dumper. I NEVER said that anyone had any influence nor control over the stock or the CEO. Again, that was your own interpretation. Your assumptions about my sources are totally wrong and off base. No one told me any of this. It is just my humble opinion after reading months and months of this thread.
If you have any verifyable evidence about this stock or any of the principals, Then please post them. I don't appreciate it when someone tries to put their own words in my mouth. |
