zenvesting wrote: SS you are truly delusional, I have not posted here since I posted that link from SIPCA because I haven't had anthing constructive to contribute to the conversation here and don't have time to waste on your delusional ramblings, the same reason why many have put you on ignore.
What?---you mean you didn't undertake any DD-as in direct dialogue vs due diligence?? and quote the CEO in "just got off the phone with the CEO etc etc____" again??? How long before the next time will we see a copy and paste occurence to that effect in your main handle "ZenClown" or the other alias? FYI I WILL be calling Chairman of the BOD when the vote is ratified and voicing my insistence that a professional PR company be retained for sponsorship and the private access ala you...ala Kid ends so that with it the backroom email campaign that went to select individuals including my being solicited....dosent continue to happen...Don't like it...tough...it is what it is and I don't like it. And I will be getting into dialogue with the Chairman of the Board who is suppossed to be the steward of all shareholder interests and asking that the company talk to Rowlands about what was communicated to you and nowhere else made public and I may even ask they consider getting your URL made public.
And my Ignores are a badge of honor-from taking clowns like you to task and I don't sweat it Not one bit. My Ignores are well earned...durning the Halycion day of the 99-2000 when board wars were a daily bloodbath and taking the clutter to the curb was a undertaking worthy of endavour...just like now from time to time...I been on 310 IP since that time period and fluctuate 10 up and 10 down...big deal-my time online is limited-not my ability to post and call a spade a spade and I call all stocks down the middle...the good the bad and yes in your case..even the ugly. Deal with it or make yourself another weak kneed participant in the list of purgatory-I don't really care. This stock needs professional and broad based communication vs private and select individuals having access in advance of the average common shareholder. When one cries to much its often because the cut it close to the bone...right about now you should be feeling my size 11's up the chutpah hitting your tailbone a little to hard.SS
I don't think you need to read T
he 7 Habits of Highly Effective People I don't think anything Steven Covey wrote would be at your pay grade of understanding. to understand that wasting time reading your baseless drivel is a completely unproductive use of our time, consequently you have racked up 320 IGNORES! Get a grip man, look at the facts, do you really think people value your opinion?
I don't know you tell me.4.5million post reads and counting would suggest some honest folk don't like a dishonest and unlevel trading field amongst other invesetors who think and present themselves as tho the "information priviledged few".
Again, if you have actually read and understood the discosure rules, you should understand that it's not just legal, but it actually common practice for companies of all sizes to include contact information at the end of their press releases to encourage investors and anyone else interested to call and discuss the non-material details of the business activities, goals, objectives, operations, and philosophy to anyone so motivated to pick up the phone and call and engage in a respectfull conversation.
I think I know REG FD and when its crossed and will be discussing it with the EUO Chairman of the Board as I know the majority of all small companies monitor the internet stock chat rooms and some even employ tracking softeware to save time or outsource it even (PR Firms will sometimes look after this facet of sponsorship under their services contract) whereby if the company name or the principals or the the company's technology is mentioned in a post on the WWW it getsfiltered directly back to the company thru tracking software.
This is common practice and completely legal, so long as he information is not "material".
Wrong...or do I need to link you the most recent posts on the weekend related to reg FD once again? Just say the word and i will provide.
Lets see what the EUO Chairman says after the vote. There is a specific definition of "material included in Regulation FD that I suggest you get familiar with, although it the definition also extends into interpretation of past case law as well, it should be fairly clear to anyone with any kind of a grasp on reality that it is okay to discuss these non-material aspects of a company's business. Here is a relavent quote for you to ponder:
"While it is not possible to create an exhaustive list, the following items are some types of information or events that should be reviewed carefully to determine whether they are material: (1) earnings information; (2) mergers, acquisitions, tender offers, joint ventures, or changes in assets; (3) new products or discoveries, or developments regarding customers or suppliers (e.g., the acquisition or loss of a contract); (4) changes in control or in management; (5) change in auditors or auditor notification that the issuer may no longer rely on an auditor's audit report; (6) events regarding the issuer's securities -- e.g., defaults on senior securities, calls of securities for redemption, repurchase plans, stock splits or changes in dividends, changes to the rights of security holders, public or private sales of additional securities; and (7) bankruptcies or receiverships.47
By including this list, we do not mean to imply that each of these items is perse material. The information and events on this list still require determinations as to their materiality (although some determinations will be reached more easily than others). For example, some new products or contracts may clearly be material to an issuer; yet that does not mean that all product developments or contracts will be material. This demonstrates, in our view, why no "bright-line" standard or list of items can adequately address the range of situations that may arise. Furthermore, we do not and cannot create an exclusive list of events and information that have a higher probability of being considered material."
What's more, your suggenstion that the company get a PR firm for "sponsorship" to promote every little non-material detail of their operations and partners business is completely absurd and would not only diminish the company's reputation to that of pump and dump trash, but would also jeapordize it's relationship with it's new partner.
PR Sponsorship is not promotion (which is what you did with your "just talked to the CEO" post Jackazz. Sponsorship is a complete co=ordinated comprehensive cohesive communication and visibility strategic program where guys likee
you don't get access=-anything corporately communication wise
goes thru the PR firm so one voice-one message of the company by the company from the company and for the company is heard-and guys like you get cut off from direct access ever again occuring. I guess that would ruffle your feathers Huh?
Furthermore, anyone with any kind of understanding of the reality of working within government(s) and their consultants and contractors should also realize that public companies working on these kind of programs are more likely to request "confidential treatment" of their contractual arrangements and scope of work, much more than they are likely to tout it or promote it. It should be fairly obvious to anyone who has visited SIPCA's news feed that they aren't real big on discussing their contractual relationships with govermnments, so expecting that they will allow Eurocontrol (or Xenometrics) to make announcements about contract wins is showing a complete lacking of common sense.
Yeah Okay...says who-YOU? You don't understand jacksheet about PR and its effect andf you actually defending the status quo to this effect has my spider senses tingling somewhat as to just what relationship do you have at/with EUO-direct or arms length.....hmmmmnmnnnnn?
Tell you what tho...you do'th protest to much and I am going to ask the company and attempt to find out just why.
What you posted and quoted was not public knowledge and pertinent to me as an investor that you have that knowledge and no one else could say the same-and are brazen enough to not only post the dialogue but put it in "____" as tho being quoted word for word was dumb-and if not dumb self serving...maybe your trading records would be of interest? to post that the CEO does that ahead of a ratification vote? how much "look at me" need to you have to be that stupid???-we do not have a Definitive Agreement I will remind you till the shareholders ratification vote is completed...and you post in a cheerleader skirt that the CEO makes a trip to Switzerland because of opportunity-to aid SICPA in the marketing efforts...that's is what you said...that is what you implied ...that is what you quoted and less you are authorized to speak for the company or paid by the company for services or tied to the company you providing information that to my opinion and experience in the market is akin to "front running" and I have a problem with one individual getting that information and passing it around to select friendly others...and I know it happens cuz Kid solicited me here at stockhouse with referencing that BS from other threads and having the "good ear" for a "few EUO investors" and "not yet for public consumption" to quote Kid directly from this past Aug sent to my Stockhouse inbox email.
So...like to you want to stick to your story still?
Go ahead...convince the choir not the maestro.
SS