First, I am not responsible for your education and your questions are more to the point of asinine than they are anything else.
As for the 17 (b) what I posted in my previous answer addresses that very well if you actually bother to read it. I don't do single syllable answers for individuals who would otherwise be hard pressed to hold a position at the drive through window at McDonald’s.
As to my position with the company, you’re right that is my business. On the issue of my "inside knowledge of the Stock" there has been nothing posted here that would be anything other than a discussion of the legal health and well being of the company as it related to the investigation and the findings from that and the intent of the management to maintain that well being for the benefit of the investors.
As to the "royal we" you should actually consider yourself to stand corrected in terms of it being instead the "papal we" because that would definitely be more appropriate. This takes the concept of sovereignty one step higher and to a more appropriate level if you will. This is a character trait that while interesting is of little consequence in any discussion here.
And, on the issue of how the company will communicate in the future with shareholders and the general public I'm sure that will be done in terms of a legitimate web site as well as the generally accepted corporate press releases. I have no standing from which I can represent the position of the company on this site or any other. What I have stated here is based on documented fact as it exists and is pertinent to discussions of the company’s viability in an ongoing ability to execute its business model. That being without the undue influence associated with the previous nest of stock fraud artists.
The issue here is that through the structure of your statements and questions you establish a very leading position that is completely recognizable - somewhat akin to the old "are you still beating your wife", line of questioning. This in not only singularly offensive in it's construct it is patently obvious what is being attempted on your part. So, hat you will find is that the generally mundane chatter here is just that - chatter. It is fairly apparent that there is no intent to support a literal discourse on any subject that would be of importance in these matters because you either attempt to redirect the main point to some inane point or as I have previously experienced make claims of being off subject.
The company management is definitely not in attempting to maintain meaningful communications with the shareholders or the general public through any means other than authorized conduits which certainly would not include "anonymous postings" here or anywhere else.
