InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 23
Posts 4070
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 12/03/2007

Re: venomen2002 post# 99023

Thursday, 07/28/2011 10:42:34 AM

Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:42:34 AM

Post# of 103340

The answer is..there are none..


Once again you are stating this as a fact. Where is the documentation? Expo Holdings by their own admission says there were stock improprieties that caused the ETC spinoff to collapse. The spinoff YOU repeatedly (at least 3 times) posted had absolutely NO chance of failure. Now despite calling that 100% wrong, you are posting that it is a fact that Expo Holdings has lied in archived print that there are no stock improprites? What is the source of your information from the company and why haven't you published it? It can't be FROM the company because then they would be stating two polar opposite things are true. Is it the SEC? Do you have information that the SEC is investigating Expo Holdings and has given you information concerning their EXPH stock practices the rest of the shareholders and interested parties do not have?

I have never stated once or by lack of admission implied that the company was a factual SCAM. I have always qualified that as being my opinion. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming at this point and only someone completely out of touch with reality would believe they were 100% honest and attempting to run a legitimate business for profit. Even you just posted that it is a FACT they have lied about stock improprieties by stating as a fact there are none, so is that what you are saying? That Expo is scamming and lying about their stock practices? Who has set out to "destroy" the company? What possible methods could be employed by anyone anywhere that would be more effective at "destroying" Expo Holdings than those used by James D Brown and Glenn Harrs over the past five years? What is your point in all this? Are you stating that it is a fact Expo is a scam or that in your opinion they are not a scam even though you have factual evidence that documents they are? IMHO.