Replies to post #18461 on Redwood Scientific Technologies Inc (RSCI)

[Angelman]

My statement about negative comments was not directed at you.

As far as throwing mud is concerned, I think the post this is replying to represents more of that than my comments have.

If you guys can't handle correction to your communications, that is not my problem.

I made it known that I am one of the senior guys here, and perhaps that was a mistake on my part, and my conservative viewpoint probably puts me into a somewhat minority position here.
Being 60 does not automatically mean that someone is "old" in either mind or body, nor does it make me outdated or irrelevant. I always had respect for those who were much older than myself, unless they proved that such respect was unwarranted.

My father was an English teacher at the high school level, and I was an honor student in my own high school; having been repeatedly put into 'advanced' English classes, so I have a good handle on the use of written words in order to communicate properly.

I am going to call it as it is, and if you guys don't like, that's too bad.

[gnosis]

for those who find the cremaster muscle offensive

i agree that that is the simplest explanation of that remark

it is also clear that you did not say it was the only explanation, or even the most likely. although one might infer that you thought it was the most likely, in which case i agree.

he almost certainly does not know, at least not the way i use the word "know." it has not happened yet. things could change. if he thinks he knows, he is wrong, at least the way i use the word know. if by "know" you mean think strongly believe something that might not be true, perhaps he knows. that is a waste of a perfectly useful word though.

if he is almost certain, i do not see why he would be constrained from saying so, unless his certainty was due to a leak from SEC.

i guess he did manage some restaurants in california, so maybe he is super connected to federal regulators who flew across the country to eat in his places. on the other hand, maybe not.

i am not saying anyone else said anything about this. I am saying it makes no sense to give current stockholders (by awarding money directly to the company) forfeiture proceeds (beyond the relief of the debt) because current stockholders were not necessarily victims of the levy fraud. stockholders during the period in which the levys commmitted the fraud were the victims.

if his lawyer told him to expect money to go to those who were stockholders at the time -he would not tell him it was going to the company, because that would not be compensating the victims, it would be compensating current stockholders, some of whom were in no way victims of the scam - i see no reason why he could not say "my lawyer advised me that there is a strong possibility stockholders who were victims, including me, will be compensated"

why would he not be able to say that?

his refraining from making rosy predictions suggest to me that he is not particularly optimistic, but it could be that he is somewhat optimistic but far from certain and just being cautious

saying the SEC is going to do one thing or another knowing this will lift your stock price would probably require a pretty impressive amount of courage or bad judgement.