okay TFN, so you acknowledge that it is a real article from the Wall Street Journal. So why would anyone seek to falsely discredit it or malign me simply b/c i posted something reputable which rebuts the obviously BS claim made earlier that UC owns 85% of the company.
he doesn't, but i guess if it serves to fuel the hype, it's okay?
50M attempted to falsely accuse me of posting it to deceive. i realize there is quite a circus surrounding this stock (which often happens w/a suped-up hype-a-thon P&D), but that should never give so-called "longs" free reign over a board.
somebody posted earlier that UC owned 85% - didn't have time to respond then & when happy hour kicked in, i searched for the post on OMNI's board to refute the false claim.
it is the supposed "long" reaction that is quite telling about the purported strength of this stock IMO.