Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Johnik]

You seem to think that we can all agree on a definition of "reasonableness", which is what is required of an objective standard, where I think that we've proven that we can't.

I am certain that I have never said that before in my entire life. If I had, I'm sure you would have quoted me. Oh, and before you accuse me of taking your statements out of context, here's your entire post.

Regardless of the complicated nature of the law, JBI's management should make sure that all of its shareholders have access to any information that might influence the real value of their investments in their own perspectives at the same time.

Once again you have quoted a phrase out of context in order to complain about it:

I didn't just say "In fact I object to the word "standard" as well" in response to a noise in my head. I said it in response to this:
"So you think a subjective standard applies to the issue of reasonableness or reasonable forseeability?"
Because for a law, or standard, to be consistently enforceable I fail to understand how it can be subjective.

And I chuckled when you said this for virtually the same reason: "Perhaps, but the rule imposes an objective standard (i.e., reasonableness)."
You seem to think that we can all agree on a definition of "reasonableness", which is what is required of an objective standard, where I think that we've proven that we can't. "Reasonable", like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.

I'm sorry that you considered my remark to be snide...I have a sense of humor.


But none of that matters as long as you agree with this:

"the company CEO has the obligation, or at the very least should take it upon himself, to gather together the personnel that he employs who have contact with the public and suggest to them that they should not be providing information to individuals that the company itself has not made public. The determination as to what is material or not material is his responsibility, whether it be assessed properly or otherwise."

And I'm sure that you do.

All you are demonstrating here is that you continue to be confused. I thought I did a pretty decent job of explaining the issues to you, but apparently you either did not read my post carefully or you simply reject my rationale. You don't need to take my word for it; by all means go read a book on this subject, after which you will either agree with the principles I explained to you, or you will have some basis for demonstrating that I am mistaken (which I am confident in this case will not happen).

But alas, you instead choose to attribute statements to me that I never made:

You seem to think that we can all agree on a definition of "reasonableness", which is what is required of an objective standard, where I think that we've proven that we can't.

I never stated this, nor would I ever state this. To the contrary, I readily acknowledged that reasonable minds can differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from a set of facts. At no point did I declare a definition of "reasonableness" that we all must agree upon, as you have suggested in your post. That assertion of yours is truly asinine. If you do not understand a portion of my post, then you can of course raise some questions.

I am not surprised by your lack of appreciation for my efforts to explain to you these legal standards and issues. Rather than resort to pettifoggery, however, I respectfully suggest that you pursue frank and open discussion. We would make far more progress that way, IMO.

As for this comment:

But none of that matters as long as you agree with this:

"the company CEO has the obligation, or at the very least should take it upon himself, to gather together the personnel that he employs who have contact with the public and suggest to them that they should not be providing information to individuals that the company itself has not made public. The determination as to what is material or not material is his responsibility, whether it be assessed properly or otherwise."

And I'm sure that you do.

As you predicted, I certainly do agree with that statement, although I am not at all convinced that a Reg FD violation has taken place.