Replies to post #101679 on RCC Holdings Corp fka RCCH

[mcokpba]

Frogdreaming - Interesting example of selective logic.

My comment – Are you referring to my deleted post or to your own?

Frogdreaming - You argue that even though there is a (allegedly) huge supply of RCCH shares, a very small demand (as forced by the lack of participating brokers) causes excessive fluctuations in the share price.

My comment – Pretty good succinct summary of the first part of my deleted post.

Frogdreaming - I wonder why you don't consider the FACT that the vast majority of those 10 billion shares reside in accounts at the non-participating brokers, thereby severely restricting the virtual float and increasing the volatility proportionally.

My comment – We agree on the “increasing the volatility proportionally.” The reasons behind the increased volatility is where we have a difference of opinion. I do not see equitable restrictions on the buying and selling of RCCH shares. You seem to selectively ignore the unbalanced restrictions between buy and sell transactions. Buy transactions appear to be more heavily “severely (your word)” restricted than less restricted sell transactions.

Isn’t it a FACT that (participating?) brokers will accept sell orders anytime without restrictions? What is your take on unbalanced severe buy restrictions on the virtual float?

Frogdreaming - “thereby severely restricting the virtual float…...”

If you want to apply logic to an argument, you must do it across the board, not in a selective manner that supports your preconceived conclusion.
*************************************************************

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“And ... the SEC has already proven that Gene sold out the shareholders by selling shares at $0.00005 to $0.00007 to Gendarme……..”

jmo in small letters at the end of that post excuses all the misrepresentations I guess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frogdreaming - "Proven" is correct. The conclusion is inescapable.
The SEC complaint lays out the scenario, the accused response makes no attempt to refute it. Case closed. If Gendarme didn't buy those shares at discounted prices they would have used that fact to blow away the SEC complaint. They didn't.

My comment – Case No. 2:11-CV-00053-KJM-KJN is still in the pleading stage. A Motion to dismiss has been under consideration since May 2011. Assigned to: District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, Referred to: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.

Frogdreaming you argue that the “accused” (Gendarme is defendant) makes no attempt to refute they didn’t buy (RCCH) shares. Please expand on what selective logic lead you to the conclusion that Case CV-00053 is “case closed.”