"Pretty much in-line with what you quoted from stox, right?"
No.
Jay,
In the first case, your response reasonably addresses the likelihood that a process has begun to resolve a conflict versus the contention that that conflict has been resolved. In the second you express an opinion that conforms to a legal process versus a statement indicating an awareness that the company is determined to compromise that same process.
1.
SM: "We'll soon see just what the talked about Wells notice settlement consists of in its entirety." (note the tense)
Jay: "Mr. Siegel very likely initiating meetings with his former associates or successors at the SEC's NY Dept of Enforcement, where he previously served as Chief Attorney. Or maybe he met directly with the staff in Washington after receiving the Notice." (note the conjecture)
2.
SM: "It being doubtful in the extreme that management would open the info./detail floodgates in full in the absence, at the very least, of official assurance of said opening resulting in an expedited return to being OTCBB quoted." (no assurance, no filing)
Jay: "My opinion being that management has no choice but to submit the filings while on the current trading venue, and the question now revolving on the timing of the 211 approval." (simply, acceptance of the process)
So no, Jay, I don't view your response as being "Pretty much in-line with what you quoted from stox". Apart from its readability, which I greatly appreciate, it shows a measure of reason and self-doubt that are notably absent from SM's posts on the same issues. Where you use the terms "should have,", "seems", "likely" and "maybe", we hear "we'll soon see", "there will be" and "we have" from SM, indicating an ability to both see the future and divine as current fact things about which the rest of us are unaware.
I do hope that, to the extent that he continues to post, you will respond to him in a manner that the rest of us can understand. While I have no use for his posts whatsoever, I have found your responses interesting and valuable.
ps. I can't help but add that the following is representative of the type of statement that bothers me the most about SM's influence.....when an independent thinker repeats it as if it is true:
"Stox provided that negotiations were in progress while the investigation was in the active phase."
Plausible, certainly.
Factual, maybe.
But it bothers me that you repeat it as gospel.
