rs,
Appreciate the measured words, BUT:
"Surely, we can agree that, save for filings, just about everything posted here is speculative at best."
We surely do...and I made what I thought was a clear effort NOT to question the authors speculations, but rather to address the statements that appeared to me to be put forth as fact. I believe you would be very hard pressed to find posts of mine that question anyone's speculations or opinions......to me, that would make no sense at all.
Here are the statements. I see no sign of phrases such as "I think", "I believe" or "it appears to me" and, while poetic license is taken in terms of sentence structure, they all appear to be statements put forth as fact:
"a resolution has been successfully negotiated. The arrival of the Wells notice part of the settlement. Signifying actual implementation."
"No enforcement action to be taken against the company itself. Meaning that the numbers are sound. No need for any material restatement(s) as talked about."
"Minimum Bid price requirement waiver secured."
Inasmuch as the author has a history of unwillingness to respond to a direct question directly, I was happy to "allow you". Unfortunately you have not responded to my question directly either, but hope you will try again. However, if the statements in question are pure speculation, as you seem to be suggesting, I would hope that the author would say so directly and not by proxy.
"If the author, or anyone else for that matter, can provide an iota of factual support for ANY of the following I appeal to you to do so."
AI
