Bourque Industries Inc (BORK)

[gotmilk]

A Tweet on March 26, 2016 by John Bourque

"some of us just have friends who are willing to step in when others just slander." - John M Bourque ?@Bourque1John

slander -
1. words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
2. an abusive attack on a person's character or good name

While I acknowledge my recent posts directed towards Bourque Industries, really to John Bourque and not the company directors as I still hold the opinion that all are his puppets and do not allow themselves to execute the duties of their positions as known as the unspoken and undocumented acknowledgment that John Bourque controls all communication to the Hurting in the Dark Shareholders, of which is limited to John Bourque's demos and words that afford no substance of being able to verify, are under context to be offensive in regards to the strong frustration felt by the Hurting in the Dark Shareholders these years from 2011 when their investments lost 99% of value continuing to this day without accepted industry standards that delineate normal and expected communication from a company to shareholders.

So yes, the "offensive" notion in "slander" exist as it pertains to an expression of frustration, as in: An expression of annoyance at being hindered to received an expected level of respect and communication from Bourque Industries.

As for my posts to be regarded as "slander" to represent an "abusive attack" on John Bourque's character and good name I fully disagree as my posts contain only facts in the public domain so sanctioned by that information delivered by Bourque Industries into the public domain. From this data I make it clear that my judgements derived from the facts are just my extrapolations based on the known facts and observations, which are just my opinions calculated from values of a function (sanctioned information delivered by Bourque Industries into the public domain) outside the range of known values.

"outside the range of known values" meaning to speculate with a large degree of hypothetical deliverance based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence.

"adequate evidence" that not forthcoming from Bourque Industries to the Hurting in the Dark Shareholders.

As for the above mentioned Tweet by John Bourque "some of us just have friends who are willing to step in when others just slander" I reflect now that unlike the recent past I now observe a "cease and desist" awareness from those visitors to Bourque Industries Headquarters and Lab that speak to John Bourque, CJ Condon (Director & Chief Executive Officer), C. Sandy Berry (Director & Treasurer), and especially Chief Security Officer Juan Mendoza in regards to obtaining activity within Bourque Industries of Kryron status for it's properties and application awareness that represents possession of nonpublic material information where buying or selling BORKs may constitute trading "on the basis of" material nonpublic information prohibited under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 there-under where.

So here we are fellow Hurting in the Dark Shareholders, not trusting the hearsays of the past, demos of Kryron armor, and published words of a suggestive nature without any factual information for verification of truth.

So I ask, how else can a Hurting in the Dark Shareholders express oneself?

just asking