"I think I represent investor sentiment when I say they are not interested in the sputtering and fulminating and anguished self-righteousness of the random (and suspicious) forum member, but their primary concern is the lack of any kind of information coming from the company and the owner they entrusted with their money years ago. All those who disagree with this paragraph pleae sign on and say so! "
Since you asked: I disagree.
1. My primary concern is the health of my investment and the potential proceeds.
- I'm certainly very concerned with the lack of communication as it pertains to the health of my investment. However, if Steve wants to keep his mouth shut and just send me lots of big checks, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Not that I see that happening.
- I strongly disagree with your characterization of David Knight as suspicious. You are suggesting that I should trust you more than I trust him. Why? Because you say so? Who are you? I don't put a ton of faith in David Knight, but who cares? I'm not putting a ton of faith in you either. I have a verified name for David Knight (of course, it's verified by another person that I don't know) and I don't have one for you. But I'm not about to hand a blank check to either one of you. What does trust mean on a public, free, mostly anonymous forum? Give it a rest.
- There's enough great crap-detection going on on this forum that I don't think many unsubstantiated positive comments or reports are going to go unchallenged. Shills are not going to survive here because nobody will take them seriously.
- I will take sputtering and fulmination any day over personal attacks, suspicion and McCarthyism. From either side in this discussion. I want to hear everybody's opinion - I can sort it out for myself, thanks.
