Replies to post #31518 on SPOOZ Inc (SPZI)

[Ineedmoreshares]

Have you even ready my posts?

Don't misquote me.

"And your statement "141 will handle all aspects of SWARM..."

I was quoting the person I responded to. You created this message as if that was me speaking. Go back and read my post and notice the use of quotation marks then go back and look at the post I was responding to.

Furthermore, as to the first part of your question, when I said "If" 141 was being used to avoid a conflict of interest, I was not being cagy. I accept that and my posting hisotry has been positive about that aspect... In this case, I was using "if" as an objective statement with regards to the next statement I made to contrast that "if" SWARM was to to also be sub-licensed than the reason for creating 141 to avoid the conflict of interest is not relevant.

SPZI develope and sells revolutionary trading software and that's why people bought the stock. If SPZI is now seen to be allowing 141 to sell the use of SPZI software to third parties, that's not good and it's not fair.

SPZI owned SWARM 100%. Now, imagine SPZI gives another trader a an exclsuive perpetual license in the futures and derivatives market along with the right to sub-license SWARM to others...now keep in mind that the other trader is 141 who are the same principles as those in SPZI.

If that is the case, then it may appear that SPZI management would be effectively stealing something from SPZI shareholders... exactly that which shareholders thought they were buying... that being trading technology developed by SWARM.

I'm not saying that is what is happening, but I personally want clarification that 141 will only be using SWARM to trade and that any sub-licensing will be done through SPZI and that SPZI will own those funds 100%.