jrf30 Monday, 05/20/19 10:21:58 AM Re: tradingformyfuture post# 5212 Post # of 6016 So things we hear are 1) buyout is happening. Huge news, but not public yet. 2) this information came directly from the horses mouth. Here is the quote: “Reliable Source (horse’s mouth) that buyout deal happening. CEO will stay on for 5 years.” 3) then confirmation that this is not just an opinion, or a theory, but fact. “My info is accurate” “My source is cantankerous but has so far always been true to his word." "Knowledge is power” 4) so now we wonder who that source might be. Next we are supplied with an implication that it is the CEO. Which would make sense since it is the horse’s mouth. Brackets mine. “I’ve spojen (Sic) to him (the CEO) many times and he’s always told the truth. Just his timelines have been off.” 5) so basically you are saying you have information from the horse’s mouth, and it is true, and of course you have spoken to this CEO many times, so that is probably who gave you this information. Right? Which leads to to think either a) this is true, in which case a MAJOR news announcement is being spread from the CEO to a shareholder who is telling others so they can trade on non public information. Not a good thing and a major red flag. Or ... b) this is not true, and you are saying something false to hype, hope, or worse to pum p, and not to be trusted. Neither option is good. Posting something like that is tough, because if it is true, you are purposely spreading non public information AND implicating the CEO in an illegal distribution of that news against SEC Reg FD regulations. If not, then you are disreputable. That's what "I" see in a post like this. “Common sense and logic are more important. “ Common sense would say either a) or b) MUST be true. You are being truthful or deceptive. Makes sense. It has to be correct, or incorrect. One or the other. Both options say the posts are not proper to be made. As a matter of fact, if TRUE it bothers me more than if false. YOU would be accurate, but the CEO would be violating all sorts of regs. “Any further comments by anyone, I’m open minded. I’m all ears. “ Now we shall see …. Does option a or option b sound more accurate to you? You are telling the truth, and the company is violating the law, or you are saying a hope (Which we ALL have. Not saying you should not) but presenting it as fact and as you know the inside scoop when you do not. Which is it? "Thoughts?"