TekNuLoof, yes.... or ... maybe they didn't?
I know for sure that at least TWO people at PPHM read the board. Not MAYBE but SURE. And I don't know it in second hand but because they said they are aware of the PPHM board themselves and have read it. I am NOT talking about Jay (JazzBM) (we all know he was on this board). And I am willing to extend accept that past actions are no guarantees for the future, or in other words it is not because someone is aware of this board and has read post in the past that that by definition means they are still reading it now, although something tells me they do.
I just put in one sentence from the past on this board for later reference in that aspect: "Accepting loan terms that forbid the issuing of PPHM shares disarms the poison pill, unless an explicit exception is present, as the poison pill is based on issuing shares". Reading this board when you are part of PPHM isn't a crime, is it?
However, that being said, it doesn't mean that I adhere to the fact that Chris K has made the statements reported (and I am trying to walk on eggs here while I write this if you understand what I mean). Some would now jump up and ask for sources and etc I will not go there because it is wook who posted it and he has credit.
So I second you that, assuming this was the case, it was :
a) very unprofessional
b) uncharacterised for CK's doing, he's the one hard to extract anything from.
c) Not in line with many of his past statements such as not discussing anything that hasn't been part of a public communication
Where I don't follow you, in the meaning of understanding what you mean or base that conclusion on, is why you have the impression the reported conversation aims at making us sell PPHM shares? Maybe you could clarify the reasoning because that was not how it came across to me.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
