That was a rather paranoid reply. If I were trying to do anything "legal", your thoughts on these matters would be of no significance - the facts are the facts, and your message board postings do not determine them (at least none here). Fortunately, though, your assumption is wrong at this time.
I do, however, find it interesting that you repeatedly excuse Matt's earlier statements as somehow being part of his job as CEO. In your world, CEO's are expected to do such things? A CEO should say whatever convinces people to buy stock, even if it turns out to be false? That's disappointing. Because I tend to believe that there ARE limits to what a CEO should say or do in an effort to promote their company. I tend to believe that CEO's should be very careful in their communications with investors, and strive to avoid making statements that could hurt their credibility in the eyes of the investing public.
At the end of the day, the very statements that you chalk up to Matt doing his job to portray the company positively ended up having the exact opposite effect - they ended up HURTING the company by damaging his image and credibility. Maybe he needs better advice from those around him.
But I suppose we can just add those remarks to the rapidly growing list of things that started off with good intentions and ended up in failure.
Thanks for your reply.
AI
