RE: aatozz - One obtuse souldoingthejob, aka aatozz,
Is "load and clear" some sort of military term?
You say you do not want to communicate, but you keep running at the mouth. So I'll comment on your nonsense, for the purpose of informing other readers, that would otherwise be confused by your babbling.
You seem hung up on this "anger and venom" term, is it because you prefer five letter words that you can spell? I have commented on ISM and Randy Miller, you have likewise commented on LBE and Gary Nash. I have no shares in ISM, I assume you have none in LBE. I have said I have absolutely no admiration or respect for Randy Miller, I freely admit it, and I have and will continue to give my reasons for my opinion. There's no anger or venom involved - I don't have a Randy Miller portrait on a dart board. He's simply a man whose actions have not earned my admiration or respect. In my opinion, he is the epitome of what is not desirable in a CEO of a public company. I am entitled to my opinion. I have made no allegations of activities by Miller that cannot be supported.
Now for your misconception as to your suggestion that my comments involve libel towards ISM or Miller. They don't. The fact that ISM/Miller initiated a lawsuit claiming libel, or your twisted understanding of the legal implications, does not substantiate that I uttered libelous comments, that my actions involved ethics violations in a professional association, or any other of the defamatory comments you have made about me. A person who claims to have a knowledge of legal matters, as you have claimed, should know that one of the basics of law, is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. You have therefore made defamatory comments that cannot be supported.
If I had been involved in libelous comments against ISM/Miller, it is those parties that would take action against me. They initiated an action, claiming libel, against me and three other individuals. My position from the outset, and I believe that of two of the other defendants, was that it was a frivolous action, with the intended purpose of silencing critics. For that reason I, and I believe one other defendant, attended to the legal filings required, without engaging legal counsel. There was a fourth defendant involved, I'm not sure how he proceeded, but it did involve a laughable set of circumstances. The plaintiffs (ISM/Miller) and their representatives, in their "good judgement", named an individual who quite convincingly claimed in his defence, that he was an ISM shareholder, whose one Stockhouse post was in support of Miller. I think that is the best illustration of the quality and intent of the legal action initiated by ISM/Miller. In any case, the plaintiffs did little after making the initial Statement of Claim. The Court eventually advised all parties that unless the Plaintiffs attended to further requirements, the Court would discontinue proceedings. The plaintiffs (ISM/Miller) then filed notice that they were discontinuing the action. As most realized at the outset, the lawsuit was a farce. I have my opinion, as to why ISM initiated the suit and why they didn't want it to go to Court. In the course of going through some of the limited activities that were required, I became aware of other information that I found very interesting. I will likely discuss my opinions, and this information as time goes on - but that is another matter. The important point is that ISM/Miller were not able to support that their charges were valid.
For some reason aatozz, you fail to realize that in proceeding against you for defamatory comments you have made, it is what you have said about me (or others that may take similar action) that is pertinent. Your drivel about malicious intent against ISM/Miller is not pertinent, and even if it was, is not supported.
This may explain to others, the nonsensical comments you are making. I don't expect you will get anything out of this, and I will proceed accordingly. I might say that based on the judgement you have shown in the past (the Survey/AGM fiasco, Miller's expenditure on option grants, etc), I expect your claim of pertinent experience in legal matters is a figment of your imagination.