scarednomore,
The one thing that REALLY confused me is who was not booted. The one person who was the most vocal, was farrrrrrrrrrrrrr more active than those who were booted. I wish someone could explain to my why all the others were booted and Imo was not for expressing his opinions?
Did it ever occur to you that the "establishment" needed a scape goat, someone who will gather all the attention of potentially pro active shareholders that may eventually be able to become a threat to the "status quo"? Someone who would be used as a distraction to divert the attention from the management and its incompetence? Someone with a real name, a real address and a real phone number? Someone who could attract the anger, frustration and rage of shareholders and divert it from the real culprits? Someone who has been pro active with actual real letter to some authorities, the content of which have never been rebutted? A dangerous person who had to be discredited at all cost? Someone who has a web presence where the truth about the company is told, and needed to be kept under constant attack? Someone who had and still has a genuine interest for the ex Loch shareholders, who continuously encourage union to fight for their rights? Someone who has proven to potentially become a real liability?
I can go on and on, but if you take a closer look and use a little common sense you will realize that there was and is a need to keep a close watch over.
Like "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer".
AI
