Carboat,
"Oh come on, you came up with one outside case of a friendly partner turned hostile buyer. That was not his point and your logic/argument is again flawed."
Not true. I can come up with many cases - I've even lived a few. Look up Hudson Bay Oil and Gas and their pitch for Conoco.
But heh, let's break down the statement and see if it sounds as stupid when I say it as it sounded to me. The statement.
"A hostile bidder—by definition—would not be privy to the inside story of what is really going on;" (this is where I gave an example to prove that the hostile bidder could in fact know what is going on), and then "hence, a hostile takeover is one thing that can utterly and completely by dismissed as preposterous" Unfortunately he used the word hence. Meaning since the theory posited in statement A is correct, statement B must also be correct. I think I showed you that statement A was in fact incorrect. So, what is statement B?
Well, to answer my own question, I pretty much agree with statement B though I wouldn't say that it "can utterly and completely be dismissed as presposterous". My reasoning for thinking it to be unlikely is because of the poison pill. Read up on it. And, good luck with your shares at $1.50. Hopefully you'll get to see a complete response before you cash in.
Regards,
WH
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
