Hey MID!
I thought you made your last post on this subject a few posts ago. ;D
I kid, but on a serious note I do very much enjoy your posts. You often bring up original and interesting viewpoints.
First some general comments to your post. I had to read this thing twice. There is so much to unpack here! You start by stating you received a PM but give no details as to the content of said PM. Then you go on to restate your bag logo argument and give some color on your legal experience and finally you have a full paragraph disclaimer at the end. You also hint somewhere in there that we might have crossed paths professionally or maybe I worked for you. You also ask if I'm hiding behind an alias and to call you. Yet, you provide no number. I'm guessing here, and in my profession I do these all the time, but your post sounds like a cya (cover your ass) letter to someone you think might be a disgruntled coworker or someone you have crossed paths with, i.e. this was your personal opinion surrounding the tote bag and not you giving legal advice. Let me address this first.
I don't ever get into my personal life on message boards but I can guarantee you I've never worked for you and it is very unlikely we have worked together in any capacity. I'm a self employed professional (that is the most personal info you will get out of me). I believe you might have stated you are a physician? My professional interaction with physicians consists of them writing me reports and some additional interactions post report. Whomever you think I am, I am not. Disclaimers are not necessary with me.
Now back to the tote bag argument. I think we are in agreement that the correct way to analyze the coming soon argument is to (1) identify the specific rules and regulations in question, (2) do case law research on how said rules and regulations are enforced by the FDA and (3) finally compare and contrast our facts to the cases in question to attempt to ascertain how the FDA would treat the tote bag in our case. You state that you have talked to attorneys, you are very confident in your position that this is a coming soon ad and then you tell me to do my own research. Let me remind you that YOU are the one aggressively pushing this theory with full confidence. I'm only pointing out that I wouldn't take so aggressive of an approach when you have not done steps 1, 2 or 3. If you have done these steps please provide this information rather than aggressively making these coming soon arguments without a basis to do so then asking others to do said work.
I want to think your coming soon argument is correct. That would be amazing news. Plus, that means the time frame from TLD to meaningful revenue is short which I've always thought is the best way to deal with a manipulated stock. No slow drip of news. Drop a bomb and release all great news at once! I hope you are right but with such an optimistic read of a legal matter I'm going to be very skeptical. Dont take any of my comments personally.
It's in my nature to be skeptical in these situations. Here's to hoping you are right!
AI
