Replies to post #147195 on Medical Marijuana Inc (MJNA)

[deafelephant]

Here's the thing: regarding those SA articles about MJNA being bogus - whenever anyone asks exactly what was bogus in the articles, no one had an answer.

Maybe you could shed some light on exactly what was bogus?

[@LaughinPaulRyan]

... Market Maturation ...

Shareholders were not as dug in as they are now and I am happy the scared hands are out of the MJNA pot. Folks are working extremely hard behind the scenes to ensure that this industry is socially responsible, efficient and sustainable. Scared money doesn't deserve to make money on the backs of on the ground soldiers fighting the War On Drugs. A majority of the shareholders that remain seem to be dug in and fully comprehend the gameplan and are cognizant of the ever evolving facts on the ground. MJNA has demonstrated the ability to remain effective with a lean green team of products and services.

[Det_Robert_Thorne]

To what bogus SA articles are you referring?

The only serious mistake I've found in the negative SA articles was in the Feb 15, 2013 article by Infitialis where the author mistook Michelle Lynn Sides for MJNA's Michelle Louise Sides. That part of the article was removed from the SA site, but the rest of the article was accurate.

It's been eight months since that article was published, and subsequent negative SA articles have yet to be invalidated by MJNA's own reports.

So other than that small portion of one article, what negative things about MJNA that's been published on SA are bogus?

[SurgeGuy2.0]

if the case, it would have bounced back by now, nah, seems more to it than that IMO