Again: I hear the same variations on this same theme at most other OTCs I've stopped in at and visited or participated in. It's always "Hey, So-and-So did people wrong, and I'm not selling my soul for the filthy lucre" or something like that. Excuse me if I say that it strains the bounds of credibility that the same script seems to be read by so many people who have the same remarkably bad experiences with so many pinkies.
As to Canouse; well how do expect these folks to cover their risk and to ensure that their interests aren't subvented if things go south for the corporation or company (which is a person in the eyes of the law)? Not that I've appointed myself the head of the Joe Canouse fan club, but if it wasn't for him or guys like him we really wouldn't have a QASP to discuss right now, and the stock -- which is still worth fair P -- would be t*t$ up in the surf zone for sure and there wouldn't be ANY chance of recovery.
Now, I understand that some folks have hurt feelings over how the whole thing turned out (boy, is that for sure), and it's also obvious that the previous leadership group is enabling some of this sour grapes stuff outside of iHub, but what's the alternative? Are folks gonna hold their breath and stamp their little feet and carry out some silly vendetta in the very faint hope that they're somehow going to be made whole (assuming they even have a legal case to make) or that all that stuff will get the old leadership team re-installed? Or are they gonna use the stock they have, help the company turn it around, and then take profit from what's bound to be a fairly large set of holdings once all's said and done? The answer's pretty clear to me, but maybe that's because in the markets it really is business, not personal.
"Just business. It's not personal." That's a good viewpoint to take when it comes to the stinky pinkies, don't you think?