1. Me saying the Stanley Brothers strain, has nothign to do with TTDZ - how is that even part of the argument. I also said I was an err because I was reading something that stated the "Charlotte Web" strain had been calls "Hippies Failure" (or something like that) so I stated incorrectlyh Stanly Brothers strain.
2. I posted the date that was mentioned in the PR regarding the purchase of the site. The PR came out and that's the date I used to say they bought the site. AGain, how does that invalidate the due diligence on the owners of the sites, the previous owner, the fact that they didn't purchase or own the majority of the sites that were listed, that they have NO connections to charlottes web.
You pick out 2 insiginifcant points I made in my due diligience one of which has nothing to do with TTDZ (the fact that STnaley Brothers crated the strain or not has no impact on TTDZ).
You and others lied through your teeth and provided a bad due diligence package that probably lost several investors money the last few days as the stock continues to dive. You're the one with the agenda, posting incorrect, poor, and misleading information.
Now come back with a sensible rebuttal, because point 1 which I said was wrong is insignificant. Point 2, was the PR date saying they purchased th site an again is INSIGNIFICANT.
You lying about Charlotte Web, STanley Brothers connection, and the amount of website purchased was SIGNIFICANT in your erraneous due diligence.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
