That's right gemstone.
CEO Evans is only responsible for what SGCP does. He certainly has no control over what posters say on message boards 500, 1,000, or 3,000 times.
Posters on a message board on the other hand, CAN (and do) influence share prices. We see it on IHUB every day so I don't think that point needs to be debated or defended. Just ask Bruce LoL!
Even though it's taken longer than expected, in retrospect (and compared to any other mining venture), 4-5 years isn't that unreasonable a wait for SGCP get profitable, especially considering we started from scratch. SGCP increased gold production every year including 2012. Not as much as we need/want yet, but closer each year (at current prices). $3,000 gold and we are profitable right now. That, as you know, could happen in the next 12 months. On the agricultural side, with 3,000 acres, we got more acres under cultivation than ever. The Heineken Deal gave us a high profile recurring headline. SGCP got so very very close.
So yes, the CEO is responsible for what goes on with HIS COMPANY. Doug gets less credit for his accomplishments than any other CEO I've ever seen.
Don't forget, when SGCP produced their first ounce of gold, they accomplished more than most sub penny miners on IHUB ever will. Certainly more than other oft heralded Miners on IHUB that won't even disclose how much gold they have recovered if any at all.
External Influences got the Value Destruction they campaigned for so they should be pleased with SGCP's performance, not pissed. They got exactly what they wanted.
It's an established advertising fact that negative ads work. That's why we see all the negative ads this political year. Anybody that believes that concerted daily tag team Value Destruction doesn't effect SGCP perception AND value is out of step with current advertising theory.
Negative advertising (Value Destruction) works, especially when you can just make stuff up and get away with it.
CEO Evans has to play by a different set of rules.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
