My position on the filing issue is that GE have to report as their ownership in Arcam changes in accordance with Swedish SEC rules. Your position was that GE could circumvent those rules because there was legal wiggle room or those rules might have been changed due to case law or that GE would simply violate the law by negotiate deals and not report them, not that you ever offered any evidence to support those wild theories, your only support for those arguments was simply that it was possible.
Now that you been proved wrong since GE did in fact report their true ownership in accordance with the rules which were not changed by some case law, you're trying to obfuscate by introducing tendered shares into the discussion. Tendered shares does not constitute ownership so the argument was never that GE had to report how many shares had been tendered, since that is nothing more than speculation about what GE might be able to own in the future.
The context of the discussion was trying to gauge the likelihood of a competing bid, so of interest was how many shares GE had locked up, any shares that had been tendered could be revoked before the deadline to be sold at a higher pps should a competing offer materialize, so therefore tendered shares was never an indication of GE's ability to fight off a competing bid.
For someone who frequently complains about being misquoted, you certainly have no problem doing the same thing yourself.
It's been said that "the more you know the more you realize how little you know". As for your numerous declarative statements in regards to GE, Elliott, Swedish SEC rules etc., I can only say that it appears that the opposite is true as well.
