Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
"you got me good. So maybe before the conf call theyll release it? Lol just hoping here"
Hey, not a game of gothca. Same deal going on today with ACLH.
These boards are for nothing if not for projecting wants, desires, needs and fears. Tell me just how much real analysis those emotions crowd out.
"If the preceding PR would cover EVERYTHING there wouldn't be a need for the conference call now would there....?"
I specified "materially effecting pps" not 'everything'.
"some people"...my *ss!
"All of us' is not the wider investor audience.
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm
"We believe that issuers could use the following model, which employs a combination of methods of disclosure, for making a planned disclosure of material information, such as a scheduled earnings release:
First, issue a press release, distributed through regular channels, containing the information;70
Second, provide adequate notice, by a press release and/or website posting, of a scheduled conference call to discuss the announced results, giving investors both the time and date of the conference call, and instructions on how to access the call; and
Third, hold the conference call in an open manner, permitting investors to listen in either by telephonic means or through Internet webcasting.71
By following these steps, an issuer can use the press release to provide the initial broad distribution of the information, and then discuss its release with analysts in the subsequent conference call, without fear that if it should disclose additional material details related to the original disclosure it will be engaging in a selective disclosure of material information. We note that several issuer commenters indicated that many companies already follow this or a similar model for making planned disclosures.72
In the Proposing Release, we stated that an issuer's posting of new information on its own website would not by itself be considered a sufficient method of public disclosure. As technology evolves and as more investors have access to and use the Internet, however, we believe that some issuers, whose websites are widely followed by the investment community, could use such a method. Moreover, while the posting of information on an issuer's website may not now, by itself, be a sufficient means of public disclosure, we agree with commenters that issuer websites can be an important component of an effective disclosure process. Thus, in some circumstances an issuer may be able to demonstrate that disclosure made on its website could be part of a combination of methods, "reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution" of information to the public.73
We emphasize, however, that while Rule 101(e) gives an issuer considerable flexibility in choosing appropriate methods of public disclosure, it also places a responsibility on the issuer to choose methods that are, in fact, "reasonably designed" to effect a broad and non-exclusionary distribution of information to the public. In determining whether an issuer's method of making a particular disclosure was reasonable, we will consider all the relevant facts and circumstances, recognizing that methods of disclosure that may be effective for some issuers may not be effective for others. If, for example, an issuer knows that its press releases are routinely not carried by major business wire services, it may not be sufficient for that issuer to make public disclosure solely by submitting its press release to one of these wire services; the issuer in these circumstances should use other or additional methods of dissemination, such as distribution of the information to local media, furnishing or filing a Form 8-K with the Commission, posting the information on its website, or using a service that distributes the press release to a variety of media outlets and/or retains the press release."
"I'm not saying they won't release a PR about it, just saying that the conference call might be where they announce it FIRST."
PR has to precede CC announcements that may materially effect pps for the simple reason the CC's are more limited in distribution of info.
Insider trading.
I just recieved a return phone call from Ares, the IR person for ACLH.
The CC tomorrow will be with a Q & A after the following agenda is presented.
1.) Existing revenues and direction of the company.
2.) Caveat Emptor was placed on ACLH because of "unusually high trading volume". Necessary signatures have been submitted to OTC Markets and warning will be lifted 'shortly'
3.) Mergers and acquisitons will be addressed, including rumors.
4.) Product test results will be addressed.
There is absolutely nothing that I can add to what I've posted.
Have your questions prepared.
"I'm sure in due time we will get a breakdown of how the Ambassador force is doing, but I wouldn't take their silence or perception of silence as a bad thing."
You have construed well, Master Smitty.
"Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.
Sir Thomas More: I do.
Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me.
So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title?
Crowd in court gallery: No!
Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
Cromwell:
Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law."
"People scoffed when it was said that "this is Obama's Katrina".
They just 'scoffed'? They didn't look at you like someone they
wouldn't trust on a mission to the supermarket to
purchase both apples and oranges because they figured
you'd come home with all of one or the other?
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004300034
"Representatives of Ancon Marine, Inc., a contractor which sells fluids for ACT's wholly owned subsidiary, American Petroleum Solutions, Inc., confirm that they have submitted samples of our Hard Surface Crude Oil Remover, which has been tested in the past and is under consideration by BP for use in the ongoing remediation efforts in the Gulf Coast region. Furthermore, our "Fish Kill" documentation, which supports the environmental safety of our fluids with respect to fish, was favorably accepted."
Not to downplay ANY news that can be construed as favorable for ACLH, but is anybody else curious as to WHO/WHAT body they "submitted samples" to? And who exactlly has "favorably accepted" the environmental safety documentation. Generally you don't see that kind of lack of specificity in PR's when you see the words 'accepted' and 'submitted'.
Here is the latest email from penny Stock Chaser.
Two points:
1.) Do NOT look for a BP contract announcement during the conference call for the simple reason that a wider distribution announcement in the form of a PR will be needed. A conference call is too limited an audience for SEC rules RE significant announcements likely to influence pps. However if a PR comes before then it'll be a moot point. For instance they could time an announcement for just before the conference call.
I have no feeling one way or another on a BP contract by this Friday.
2.) I've been on conference calls and watched pps for the company on the call fall because of bad news, non-news and for lousy presentations and contentious Q&A sessions. Count on this: listening skills as poor as the reading and analytic skills you've seen on this board and other boards!
If just one word or sentence or paragraph or voice inflection is misunderstood and you think you comprehended correctly and everybody selling didn't, then pick up some cheapies from those weak hands/ears/minds! God, you all know how much I hated writing the last phrase in that sentence!
"ACLH, This conference call on Friday could open the eyes of many investors, ACLH closed @ .04 today and we think we are going higher
ACLH has been bouncing between .033 and .06 in the last few trading sessions. The stock closed @ .04 today which was up 21% from the .033 low today.
This stock has the habit of bouncing and we expect that investor interest will gel quickly as we head towards Friday and the 2PM conference call for investors.
The one month chart on ACLH shows that the buying pressure on this stock has been solid for a while now. This constant accumulation will lead to a spike in share price once we get the right news.
The conference call announced today should set a clear picture of what is going on @ ACLH for members. PSC is still long millions of shares and we will be listening into the call.
The oil spill damage is on the way to Florida.
http://www.ajc.com/business/small-part-of-oil-530448.html
ACLH has the technology and product to help clean the oil spill.
BP is on the hook to clean up this mess and we are waiting to see if or when ACLH gets a deal from BP.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/BP-Put-to-the-Wall-Over-Oil-Spill-142182.shtml
PSC is betting with our own cash that they will get a contract.
Time will tell either way. Make sure you get in on the call. Questions regarding BP and ACLH will surely come up.
Members should re-read the ACLH PR from today."
ACT Clean Technologies, Inc. Announces Conference Call
2010-05-19 10:51 ET - News Release
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 05/19/10
ACT Clean Technologies, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: ACLH) (www.actcleantech.com) announced today that it has set 2:00 PM (Eastern) Friday, May 21, 2010 for a conference call. Instructions follow for listening to the call:
Dial the Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7100 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (712) 775-7100 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Then enter the Participant Access Code: 113646#
"This is an opportunity for stakeholders to hear what ACT leadership have to say about the direction of the Company, and the exciting developments around the use of our oil fluidizer technologies to clean up oil spills, whether they are in the Gulf of Mexico, or next to a land rig, and the oil production enhancements when used down hole," commented Russell Kidder, CEO, ACT Clean Technologies.
"If you believe 100% of the shareholders in this stock read everything word for word then sit down and brainstorm on what it could mean, then you are SORELY MISTAKEN."
Yeah, I suppose I would be but I'm not the one making sweeping genralizations about posters on this board nor am I making straw man arguments like the one above.
You made my point with your Ihub % of total investors. Thank you!
I don't care how many of the 10-20% fall into your amateur category, let alone how many have 'weak hands' or how many run for cover when someone posts something negative, so often mischaracterized as bashing as to make the term as meaningless as 'socialist'. But it's a very small % ot total investors and the effect on pps is negligible at worst.
"If you're going to sit there and tell me that there are no amateurs and that everyone is a professional trader, then EVERYONE would be making money."
That's not what I said and your misundestanding and over reaction to my post hardly makes me 'negative.
There is way too much weight given to what is believed about what others on these boards are susceptible to. All I'm saying is that it's presumptious for you to make any judgments about other people's trading or reading skills, or how many are challenged in either of those areas.
"Well we know something gotta give and soon."
Not really. That's just an expression of the tension between your expectations/wants and reality. We don't really know how long it trades sideways, little up a little down.
"Many amateur investors don't even bother to read the full PR and just follow the trend, if they see selling they assume bad PR and sell. Get some cheapies while you can guys!"
OK, here we go with the 'amateurs' and the 'MM head fakes'.
Did we leave out the bashers who want to pick up some cheapies?
This nonsense is on every single Ihub penny stock board.
Why do the ones who post these theories assume that everyone ELSE is the amateur, with the ever present weak hands and even weaker minds, who is susceptible to even the mildest critiques from those mischaracterized as bashers?
I don't know why pps dropped on what was clearly a positive news PR, but apparently neither does anyone else.
"BP is not considering or testing other dispersants"
Dropping my sarcasm for the moment consider the wording in the interview and compare it to the PR from ACLH.
ACLH is NOT looking for 'dispersant' business. the Dispersants referred to by the BP person are the chemical agents they are using on and beneath the surface water. BP is allegedly testing ACLH "cleaning fluids" as described below.
The poor reading and critical thinking skills exhibted by some posters on this board cause me to fear for my Country's future!
"American Petroleum Solutions, Inc., has been requested by BP to conduct field tests of ACT's patented cleaning fluids for the removal of oil residue from hard surfaces, including such things as the hulls of ships and barges, docking facilities and rocks along the shoreline.
ACT Clean Technologies, Inc. CEO, Russell Kidder, stated, "If we successfully remove the oil residue from these hard surfaces as we have previously done in other remediation projects, we believe that BP will order our fluids to assist in the remediation of the continuing damage occurring from the recent oil well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico."
"BP is not considering or testing other dispersants"
Now just a darned minute, do you have a voice recording of this interview!? And at what point did we begin taking statements from BP at face value. How likely is it that the 'hand' of this particular BP ass-clown is one that knows what another BP ass-clown's hand is doing?
Anyway, in case that yahoo link didn't work for some of you here's the conf call info. What will be most interesting will be if they allow questions from the listening audience.
Press Release Source: ACT Clean Technologies, Inc. On Wednesday May 19, 2010, 10:51 am
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA--(Marketwire - 05/19/10) - ACT Clean Technologies, Inc. (Pinksheets:ACLH - News) announced today that it has set 2:00 PM (Eastern) Friday, May 21, 2010 for a conference call. Instructions follow for listening to the call:
•Dial the Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7100
•Then enter the Participant Access Code: 113646#
"This is an opportunity for stakeholders to hear what ACT leadership have to say about the direction of the Company, and the exciting developments around the use of our oil fluidizer technologies to clean up oil spills, whether they are in the Gulf of Mexico, or next to a land rig, and the oil production enhancements when used down hole," commented Russell Kidder, CEO, ACT Clean Technologies.
"Any words of encouragement from the office?"
Letter of Intent: "ACLH intends to entertain bids for a larger voicemail box capacity......PSC is confident that this will enable ACLH to record and not respond to many more voicemails than the present, obsolete system."
"Maybe after ameture hour we will go up"
Ahhh, so by then the 'professionals' and 'strong hands', but not so strong spellers, will have picked up some 'cheapies'?
"That line should be proprietary for all time to 'Jackie Gleason',..."
ACLH IR, 'you got some splainin' to do' should also come into play on this board.
"Hey blackhawks...long time no see around here.
Are you still an Ambassador?"
Yes, I am. But as you read on other boards that we both post on there are other fish to fry, 'beaches 'n birds 'n ship hulls to clean' while still watching the paint dry over here. Gee, I don't usually mix metaphors but that was pretty good!
And then there's the NHL playoffs that will command my attention for at least 6 more games!
""We can't be 100% sure that our interpretation is correct"?...speaks volumes towards being a 'worst', and 'vague' Email...IMO'
I supppose they should append 'In OUR Opinion' after their analysis. And of course they are lsss sure of their interpretations than are most of those who post here.
They're talking about a stock and its POSSIBLE pps move. You want 'to da` moon!' from them?
I just listened to the Commandant of the Coast Guard answer affirmtaively to the question of whether or not they can command BP to perform actions if the Coast Guard is not satisfied with BP's efforts. He indicated that that is why we saw the pictures of the leak that were released by BP today.
This suggests to me that BP will be under pressure from the Gov on a number of fronts ranging from leak stoppage to remediation and cleaning......and disclosure.
Clearly this is a fast evolving disaster response that could furnish surprises at any moment.
"PCS is just another P&D promoter and they hold millions of shares of ACLH."
That said, they've seen the realistic potential of .07 + pps and I suspect that they will want to dip their beaks at that price or higher. And, why wouldn't they be rolling the dice on that BP contract just as many of us are?
",,, one of the worst most vague emails I have seen from PSC recently."
Can't disagree with you on that. On the other hand, aren't both ACLH and PSC constrained, as mentioned, from what they can say and report? How much specificity can there be RE 'pending contracts'? Reading between the lines, how long can those ships remain out of port awaiting hull cleaning? Surely they can't put that off until cleanup efforts begin. Seems to me like a wild card for ACLH.
Here is the latest PSC email in it's entirety. Whether you buy a word of it or not, they were promoting if before recent run ups and they obviously are getting this message out to a lot of ACLH holders.
"PSC spent three hours today with one of the consultants who brought us APCX and ACLH. We have to tell all members that we could not be happier with the results of the meeting.
The guys who back APCX and ACLH are very serious and they are in constant contact with APCX and ACLH to insure that both businesses keep running smoothly and that the contact with investors is consistent.
APCX and ACLH are both big holdings for PSC. We hold millions of shares in both companies.
PSC wanted to know from our contact if we could expect anything material on APCX and ACLH in terms of news. Obviously, the consultant can only allude because of the fact that news has to be shared by the entire public but he did his best to answer questions.
On APCX we asked if business was clicking along and he told us that the PR from today on APCX is just a taste of things to come. They are working with WZE and JMango and shareholders can expect updates on both fronts. Although these are the most recent deals announced by the company, PSC can only assume by our contact’s enthusiasm that more should be coming.
The ACLH update was also very telling. We did ask about a BP contract update. Our contact told us that this update is coming. Our contact was very positive. He did warn us that BP is only announcing clean up deals once the leak is plugged. PSC is wondering aloud why he would know that if no deal with BP is coming. PSC thinks a BP deal should be coming. We will be holding our stock.
Members should take these two updates with a grain of salt. We cannot guarantee that our interpretation of the meeting is 100% correct. Then again, PSC will be voting with our stock. We like what we heard enough on APCX and ACLH to hold and think of adding.
All members should do their due diligence on APCX and ACLH. If things go as well as we expect both these stocks could be massive winners for members and PSC."
"read post #10644"
I did. Do you REALLY think that scripture is either appropriate
or relevant to trading a penny stock?
"i think something big is coming. the receptionist at mopn pleads the fifth on question regrading PR."
That pretty much cinches it, if nothing were happening the recept. would be talking her/his head off and answering all kinds of questions that he/she is particularly well equipped to address.
But this is what I'll be waiting for from you before I add to my MOPN position:
"By the way this gulf leak was mentioned in the bible, i remember it from when i used to go to bible study forever ago. i will try to find it. i believe there is to be a bigger accident in the gulf before end of year from another rig."
"The company has acquisitions in mind and claims the R/S is necessary in order to effect these transactions. Ares knows the PPS will be crushed..."
Do you want to elaborate on that? Will it 'be crushed' if.....no R/S is done? Regardless of R/S?
I'd ask him myself but his voice mailboxes are full.
"Interesting though, when reputable and trustworthy brokers and Transfer Agents tell us a reverse split is pending everyone refuses to believe it. Here when it's used in reference to something investors want to hear it will be regarded as proof that something is about to happen."
And there you have one of the fundamental 'truths' of both stock boards and human nature. 'WANT' is the prism through which all too many interpretations, undisciplined by education or experience, are filtered. People will read exactly the same words that everyone else reads and come to completley different conclusions.
Is it plausible that major brokerages would conspire to fabricate info about a pending R/S with all that that would entail RE sanctions and legal consequences? I seriously doubt it. Why this particular stock? What is the risk/reward for those brokerages?
"Not Quite..PSC was pumping ACLH all last week as well.'
Not only that, their emails could almost literaly be taken as a sentence by sentence transcription of what has appeared on this board. PSC 'pumps' are no more over the top than the speculations appearing here. I'll copy everyone on the next one and you can judge for yourself.
So, we have agreement on "GO BUGS" which would be more effectual as a cheer for the cartoon character, in his never ending confrontations with Elemer Fudd, than it apparantly is for this poor company.
Savvy or JUST NUTS?
My 'spin'? Now that this is in the public domain perhaps it will put more pressure on BP to balance their irresponsible use of damaging dispersants with the use of 'green' and benign dispersants and cleaners.
http://thinkprogress.org/
"BP chose more toxic, less effective oil dispersant manufactured by company with ‘close ties’ to oil giant.
As BP believes it has finally made progress plugging the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, it has managed to prevent much of the oil already released from washing onshore by using huge quantities of oil dispersants. BP rounded up a “third of the world’s available supply of dispersants” and has been deploying them aggressively. But Greenwire reports that the chemical BP is using is more toxic and perhaps even less effective than other available dispersents:
So far, BP has told federal agencies that it has applied more than 400,000 gallons of a dispersant sold under the trade name Corexit and manufactured by Nalco Co., a company that was once part of Exxon Mobil Corp. and whose current leadership includes executives at both BP and Exxon. And another 805,000 gallons of Corexit are on order, the company said, with the possibility that hundreds of thousands of more gallons may be needed if the well continues spewing oil for weeks or months.
But according to EPA data, Corexit ranks far above dispersants made by competitors in toxicity and far below them in effectiveness in handling southern Louisiana crude.
Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.
BP “shares close ties” with Nalco. A BP board member who served as an executive at the company for 43 years also sits on Nalco’s board, and critics suggest there may be a conflict of interest in BP’s choice of Corexit. “It’s a chemical that the oil industry makes to sell to itself, basically,” said Defenders of Wildlife’s Richard Charter. While use of dispersants helps keep oil off beaches and out of wetlands, “[s]cientists warn that the dispersed oil, as well as the dispersants themselves, might cause long-term harm to marine life.” Even Nalco admits the chemicals pose “moderate” environmental hazard, but Pro Publica noted that dispersant ingredients are kept secret under trade laws, so it’s difficult to know the potential fallout from using them. A Corexit product was used to cleanup the Exxon Valdez spill, and workers suffered health problems “including blood in their urine and assorted kidney and liver disorder.”
Watch, .0495 is the 'new' .0395....wash, rinse, repeat.
Misinformation
"Right. And he wasn't going to raise our taxes either"
I know, I know, he WANTS to. But first he needs to take away our guns!
Information
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm
"Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.
Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.
Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. The real problem is spending,counters Adam Brandon of FreedomWorks, which organizes Tea Party groups. "The money we borrow is going to be paid back through taxation in the future," he says.
Individual tax rates vary widely based on how much a taxpayer earns, where the person lives and other factors. On average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans — rich and poor, combined — has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007. That means a $3,400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.
This tax drop has boosted consumer spending and the economy, which grew at a 3.2% annual rate in the first quarter. It also has contributed to the federal debt growing to $8.4 trillion.
Taxes paid have fallen much faster than income in this recession. Personal income fell 2% last year. Taxes paid dropped 23%. The BEA classifies Social Security taxes as insurance payments and excludes them from the tax calculation.
Why the tax bite has eased:
• Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.
• Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.
• Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.
A Gallup Poll last month found that 48% thought taxes were "too high" and 45% thought they were "about right." Those saying taxes are "too high" remain near a 50-year low.
The lower tax burden should last at least through 2010, says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C. "Virtually all the stimulus tax cuts expire at the end of the year," he says. "So the key decision is whether to extend them into 2011."
" Bp could have still been on the hook but control should have been in govt hands. NOw normaly I would be TOTALLY against Gov intrusion into a private business matter."
Can't have it both ways. We both know who would be crying for impeachement if the Feds "took over BP".....the Brits for one!
I believe your normal stance includes deregualtion or lax enforcement of regulations, which is exactly what BP has been the recipient of.
"You have to remember this. PSC is a paid promoter. So they probably possess inside information and it would be legal for them to promote based on that."
Complete nonsense. Regardless of the merits or lack of same for PSC, they are just as constrained by the SEC RE inside info as are individuals.
"Yea this will probably tank tomorrow. I hate holding stocks over the weekend."
Makes me long for the relatively smart and sane posts arguing about the r/s!
"Well you really don't want to keep addressing the R/S potential if you are promoting a pinky."
Or, having addressed the issue twice, they're satisfied that there's nothing to it and that all of the other points they've made RE ACLH are more pertinent.
"I don't remember the exact wording but it seemed defiant in nature,..."
If "we can confirm" is 'defiant', then so be it.
From email at 3:35 yesterday, 5/15:
"As an inside some members have asked if there was a R/S coming on Monday. We spoke to ACLH today and we can confirm that there will be no R/S this Monday."
"This is also the same group guaranteeing no R/S, right?'
I've not seen the word 'guarantee' used by them, or anyone else in this controversy for that matter.
Interestingly enough, there is no reference to r/s in the latest email unlike in the previous two.