Excuse me for a moment please Mr. Dripz......
As a reader of RVGD material going way back, my first thought would be to look at the document in terms of any possible, infinitesimal, conceivable way in which it could be misconstrued or otherwise interpreted.
There's quite a bit of history here involving the "corporate culture of printed vaguery" of Revenge that revolves around what we as shareholders perceived to be simple objective statements but which were later characterized as something else.
As kind of a veteran of this exercise, I look at the printed Revenge material differently now.
Here's what I mean……. let's start with the statement from your post:
"Please be advised that the A/S will NOT be staying at 2.5 billion, it will be substantially reduced in proportion to the R/S ratio"
The way I read it, based on experience gained from the past characterizations from the ceo, is that while it says that the A/S will be "substantially reduced" (substantially being a subjective term of measure, of course) "in proportion to the R/S ratio", it doesn't say that it will be reduced in a direct proportionate ratio, with the key objective term of measure "direct" being the knife in the soup.
It would have been quite simple for the ceo to say that it was being reduced directly proportionate to the R/S... easy stuff. But he didn't, and that tiny, barely noticeable minute suggestion of vaguery has been precisely what the Company has used to debunk such prior written information as the big "contracts", the building permit applications, the production schedules and just a whole lot more.
It would be great if things could simply be taken at apparent logical face value here, but that has simply not proven to be the case heretofore.
When the fact that the A/S number of 2.5 billion was continued and carried forward in the R/S filing is taken into consideration, many of the shareholders have been forced to ask themselves if they can believe what may be more written vaguery or should they believe what has been legally and formally filed with the State of Nevada.
Many things may change before the R/S is finalized, nobody knows, but as it stands, the reason that the RVGD ceo is put to such an incredible level of skepticism laden scrutiny is based primarily on his past actions, and that circumstance and subsequent loss of credibility has been solely self-inflicted by him.
