Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Extract Resources Limited T.EXT



TSX:EXT - Post by User

Comment by rotten2coreon Feb 19, 2008 1:03am
67 Views
Post# 14390280

RE: Shares on issue

RE: Shares on issueFrom your previous posts: "I guess that is the only way they can go up in price. IMHO. They have what, 180 Million plus shares outstanding? That means that the had to have 1.8 Billion shares before the split. To many shares IMHO" "Before the 1 for 10 reverse split, that would make 183,000,000,000 shares at around 13 cents per share. 1.8 billion shares? You have to be kidding. LOL" Some interesting notes about demafamation of character (more specifically "Libel") here in Canada (Yes, I am from Canada): "For a finding of liability for the tort of defamation in Canadian realspace and then as applied to Cyberspace, three elements must be proven. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defamatory charge was published; this does not mean that the defamation must have been printed and distributed, rather it is sufficient that the statements have been communicated to a person other than the plaintiff. Second, the plaintiff must establish that the defamation expressly, or by reasonable implication, referred to him/herself. Third, the materials must have been false and, in the eyes of a reasonable person, discrediting to the plaintiff.(13) As noted by Dietrich, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant intended to defame. Nor must it be proven that the defendant did lower the plaintiff's reputation in the minds of persons accessing the materials and that the plaintiff actually suffered any damages from the defamatory materials.(14) The onus lies with the defendant. As the threshold for what is defamatory is low, the majority of the courts time is spent assessing whether the defendant has one of the defences available." I love how people get on the internet and suddenly think they are untouchable. There have recently been cases HERE IN CANADA where companies have taken chatroom users to court. Don't think you are protected from the law by putting "IMHO" behind everything. When you publish false staements which could conceivably have a negative affect on one's reputation, you my be held legally resposible for your actions HERE IN CANADA.
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>