InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 24
Posts 4518
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/28/2006

Re: ssc post# 340422

Tuesday, 08/18/2020 4:58:38 AM

Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:58:38 AM

Post# of 361303
Dude, WHAT are you talking about?

After so many years of reading how it's Offor's company and he has always called the shots, now he no longer is in charge?



We just (the day before yesterday) agreed that "Offor and friends" are the ones that own ERHC, still of course, since the litigation alone is already taking years!

So why the fight over a block and for whom did they fight it? Simple. Offor and friends are trying to protect their investment(...)



Just one day later I read:

Fascinating to follow the changing narrative.


Eh, say WHAT?

I literally said the day before yesterday:

Well, I, and others, claimed the very same for a long time: that Offor and friends had an interest in ERHC to protect, but that claim was fiercly disputed by some... But common sense has always dictated this.



To simplify: "Offor and friends" were and they are the ones that own the company. But to NOT divert attention here: we are finally in agreement that "Offor and friends" are protecting their investment: ERHC.

You can't protect your investment if you are not an owner. Otherwise it's not your investment (O M G). You can't be an 'owner' if you don't own shares (duh).

This also seems to explain how it is possible that ERHC was kept from going bankrupt during all these recent years. After all: "Offor and friends" are "protecting their investment": ERHC.

Difficult to keep up with the ever changing narrative.


For longs the narrative never changed. For others it did, I noticed.

The only constant is a share price near zero and no way out for stuck longs.



Say what!?! 'Stuck' in a company that seems to cannot go bankrupt, because it is protected by "Offor and friends"? Lol. If I am 'stuck' with my shares, then "Offor and friends" are also stuck with their shares... is this common sense? Yes, it is: why would anybody protect THEIR investment, if the only result is that they are 'stuck' in that investment? Common sense dictates that anybody that is protecting an 'investment', is trying to get a ROI. Common sense, right Badog?

And yet the word 'stuck' every time comes up again, silly. I want out after ROI, why would I want out now!?! I just bought... jee.

So, I think we are full circle here. It's obvious that doing true DD on ERHC is more than "just look at the share price".

We longs made some ground here for sure. In post 334884 from february 6th this year it still says:
"So now IF Offor and friends own 50% (which you have no way of knowing)"

Now we all DO seem to know.

Thank you, Doc! Your welcome Badog. I freely share real common sense and true DD, without any charge (except for a ROI in time, on 50 million shares).