Replies to post #92043 on Expo Holdings Inc. (EXPH)

[underdog150]

It's odd that you didn't think management should have held the 9/15/10 SM, yet you promoted that Shareholder Meeting in every single post in the months leading up to it.
Example #1
absolutely .. very nice to see new folks
with interest in all aspects expo/etc/cima/d&d
5 trading days left b4 SM
6 trading days left b4 4PM on 9/15 :)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54155660&txt2find=SM
Example #2
for *newer* .. eyes on exph

here's a post that while *long*
shows what has been happening on
exph'ss pps for months ~

regardless over the course of the
coming days i'll do an update

showing the correlation over the
past few weeks since this post
was written re: volume/finra's info

again .. folks .. for those of you
new to exph .. this is what is expected
out by mgmt on or b4 SM on 9/15/2010

new ceo pr'd

fins/forms

guidance for balance of 2010
guidance was given on 12/2/09 for fy 2010
at 9M to 11M .. some of us expect expo to
do *double* that in fy 2010 .. and here's
another clue .. watch and see if their 09
annual (q4 = K) is audited ;-)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53004234&txt2find=SM
---------------
should i comment *again* that i wouldn't have
held the SM .. that i expressed my displeasure
to mgmt within a week or so of the SM being held

personally not only would i have not held the SM

i wouldn't have paid pink sheets to upload fy 2009
i wouldn't have paid the firm re: fy 2009 fins
i would have had the TA go totally dark
i would have kept one website only <expo>
--------------