There a difference. Your "opinions" are false and misleading** and you refuse to modify them when presented with the FACTS. You're trying to assert that an INSIDER *IS* buying. That's not true, and JVS pointed out that was a distant close transaction with Linda's neighbor for a board seat. She may or may not lose money, that would depend on the deal she cut to vacate the board seat. Her shares will undoubtedly lose money as JVS pointed out. However, this was NOT a true insider purchase, but more importantly and to the point of why your statement is FRAUDULENT, she is NOT an insider now and this was NOT a transaction done with knowledge of the current change in ownership, something IMDS warned about in their SEC filings, and therefore NOT an insider trade under the CURRENT structure. To now, you're refused to acknowledge that.
Therefore, for those without the benefits of the FACTS as you KNOW them, your statement is deceptive and the motivation is clear, at least to me.
**To JVS's point, the SEC prosecutes those that post 'false and misleading' information.
>Just as you are saying negatives Opinions
Note on this: if you see something that I post that's false, please debate that intelligently with a quotation of facts, not just saying it's false. We all make mistakes, however, the NEGATIVE FACTS you're trying to label as opinions are a direct result of the actions IMDS personnel took that 1. they did and 2. we warned about. Yes, they were opinions THEN, but, by with the finding of FACT from the SEC, it's clear we were right. They are now a matter of record. Don't be confused.
