Sherman: Re: You went from *Ray lied* to *someone lied* to try and justify your statement, but the former is what you actually posted.
This is ridiculous. I started out with "Ray lied" because, according to Buy_Low, RAY LIED. Here is the relevant post:
I heard from more than one person, including Ray that said the quiet period is only "expected" to last a few days after it starts.
Buy_Low attributed that time frame directly to RAY. Now, you tell us that Ray is telling you something completely different. Add to the mix the fact that Rocket1010 said: "Yes, we will be in a quiet period again but for only two or three days. From the company." So, we have two independent reports that the "company" and/or Ray made statements that not only turned out to be false, but also contradict what *you* say that Ray says. According to Buy_Low, (or you, for that matter) Ray is lying. At the very least, someone is lying.
IF, you would have said "if Ray said that, he lied, or at best was irresponsibly optimistic", I would have no quarrel with your statement.
I don't GARA if you have a quarrel with my statement or not. I am astounded, however, that you continue to harp on what what amounts to a semantic tehcnicality while completely ignoring the fact that someone is lying about the duration of the quiet period. You are more interested in feeble attempts to discredit me, while *once again* giving the company a complete pass on their untruthfulness.
I am wondering why you are not chastising Buy_low, or rocket1010 for their blatantly incorrect statements instead of quibbling over sentence structure with me? It is simply incredible the lengths you will go to in order to apologize for this company.
Spoke: It really isn't that hard to admit you make a mistake once in a while.
I have admitted many mistakes. This time, I did not make one.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
