ssc,
Your anger’s doing all the talking, but let’s slow things down and deal with the facts:
1. You keep shouting “fraud” like it’s a reflex.
Speculation—even bold speculation—isn’t fraud. Fraud requires intent to deceive. I post opinions clearly labeled as such. You don’t like the opinions? Fine. But yelling “fraud” every time you’re challenged makes you look desperate, not principled.
2. Your price drop narrative is a distortion.
ERHC’s pre-split high was around $1. There was a 1-for-100 reverse split. That’s the math. If you’re using technical adjustments to inflate the downside for dramatic effect, it says more about your argument than it does about the stock.
3. Being a major shareholder doesn’t strip me of my right to an opinion.
You act like my position invalidates everything I say. But Reg FD is about material non-public information being disclosed selectively. I’ve disclosed nothing—because I don’t have anything material or non-public to disclose. And FYI, even one-way communication from a shareholder to management doesn’t violate Reg FD.
4. Your “gold standard” test is junk logic.
Asking if a stock is closer to zero than to dollars per share proves nothing. By that standard, Amazon was a failure in 2001. So was Apple. It’s short-term thinking disguised as insight.
5. Let’s cut to the real issue.
What bothers you isn’t the share price. It’s that someone like me—who’s done the research, holds a serious stake, and won’t roll over—keeps publicly challenging your narrative. You’re not defending truth. You’re defending a position. And it’s cracking.
We both know it.
—Krombacher
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
