Eco-Safe Systems USA (ESFS)

[Pleepleus]

"The fact that my post is hard to read doesn't invalidate what I have said"

You seriously believe that? Speaking for myself, when I read a public post on a site like this I always try and decide whether the source sounds credible. And, if the post is poorly written I am less likely to come to that conclusion. For example, if you were taking a class and the professor handed out a study sheet that was full of grammatical errors and broken sentences wouldn't you be concerned? Wouldn't that affect you're judgment of that professor?

As for your "logical fallacy"… it's hogwash because there's little logic in your post. An argument generally consists of premises, inferences, and conclusions. An argument that contains poor inferences (inferences where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion), are generally fallacious.

Your post is nothing more than poorly worded rhetoric and contains little in the way of facts. You compared the past struggles of Eco-Safe to "a person with a bad record" applying for a job. What? Talk about setting up a straw man. Eco-Safe is CURRENTLY in the process of installing dozens of their ozone disinfection systems for a large, very successful restaurant chain. If they were a man with a bad record looking for a job, that man would now have a law degree - his past behind him - and he would have little trouble finding a job.

"I come here for a minute or two to put a post and that is it. I am gone."

First, what does this have to do with anything? And second, do you really expect us to believe that you write your posts in a minute or two? Seriously? You already said that you sold all your shares years ago before losing much money. Yet you want us to believe that you just casually check out the Eco-Safe page for no apparent reason and then just type out your posts in a couple of minutes?

I call Bull. Bull to your two minute posts, bull to your assertion that the company should be trading ten million shares or more a day (lol), and bull to conclusion that "it is all smoke". Especially without defining what constitutes "smoke".