RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:So much fabricated rubbishTeflon2Hype wrote: "As for your contention that not releasing the whole agreement, or significant details, is "unheard of,"
Just those covenent that if violated would have a detrimental effect on the shareholders. Given the shareholders are the owners of the company and management is in fact just their employees then I think disclosing such commitments is called for.
"Everyone note that in our meetings last week in Toronto, none of the current major equity holders had any questions about the timing of the financing, the use of the financing, or the terms attached. And these are people with more than 30+ years successful investing experience - whose names I know."
You are dodging. I do not care what you say someone else said or thinks. Let me help you. The debentures were trading well below their face value and a debenture doing that is a reflection of the finacial communities faith in the company. Now you can say that everyone thinks all is groovy but the debentures were saying something totally different. Is that why he wasted company money buying them out early so there would no longer be this glaring neon sign of the real financial communitiy's sentiment?
"T2H, you have accussed me of being biased, as I am compensated by the company. What is your bias based on? Because you obviously have one. Of the 1,500+ Venture listed companies, you regularly post on only around 6 or 7 names. Why?"
So to show that you are not biased you start coming at the poster that is asking the hard questions from a personal angle? Lets stick to company business, ok? Now calling you biased is not a dig. You are a contract spokesperson for the company so that is a fact, not an opinion. Now why do you care if i occasionally and recreationally post on 6 or 7 boards and what does that have to do with this conversation?
"I thought your post of October 15th, 2015 that read "This is my last post, good luck" was . . . well, just that.
Once again going personal? At that time I discovered something that i would not disclose on this board for legal reasons so I walked away for a time. I changed my mind shortly thereafter. Is that ok? Is your next professional unbiased post going to call into question my marital status, weight, hair, height, love life, political affiliations or anything else that you feel might help to deflect this conversation away from the company? Again, lets stick to company business.
"What is your bias?"
OMG !!!..You are hellbent and determined to deflect this conversation away from the company. Reactions to actions is not a bias. Ask a cop what his "bias" is when the suspect states the car has not been driven for days but yet the engine is warm.
Have a nice day
I don't agree Teflon that I am trying to deflect anything away from the company. Regarding the discount on the debentures, yes, that's an obvious fact. Does it reflect the financial communities' rational assessment of their worth? I don't know . . . I really truly don't. Some sellers may well have thought them riskier than the coupon reflected and chosen to get out. Someone stepped in to buy those. Other sellers may have realized enough gain with the favourable currency exchange and the big coupon, had other opportunities, and sold.
But I'm going to leave that there. Regarding your contention that I'm making this somehow personal by asking what your bias is, again I would disagree. You have said that I shouldn't take being called biased as a dig (i.e. personally), and I don't. I am biased. Everyone is biased. I've spoken with a number of shareholders on this board. They have a bias.
Quite frankly, you could call me far worse things that biased - not that I think you would, as your communications have always been polite in tone - and I would not take that personally. The main reason is because I would only be personally upset by criticism or condemnation by those who I look up to and strive to emulate. The annonymous comments of a stranger on the internet don't bother me.
Your posting have shown a distinct bias (yes) towards spreading innuendo about the company disguised as fact. A few examples - the share consolidation . . . your response was that the only reason a company, unless they were large and profitable, would do a reverse spilt is to get the share price up to do a dilutive raise. That wasn't the case. Next, you stated that the only reason a Canadian company would pursue an OTCQX listing is to do an equity raise. I provided an exhaustive list of Canadian OTCQX listed companies and the syndicate members for their recent financings, and the vast majority of those were Canadian IB's. That point went past without acknowledgement.
To close, me questioning your bias isn't a personal attack. I would never call into question your marital status, height, etc., because that's not polite, and I strive to conduct myself with politeness and courtesy in these postings, without resorting to personal attacks - as do you. I do however find myself wondering why you have a particular animus - a bias - towards this company I know well and am proud to represent.
You have said you wanted to hear "from the horse's mouth." I say it one more time - call or email me, I'll try to set up a meeting. No one will know that it's Teflon who is calling. Although if you're not a current or potential shareholder, I can't promise you anything.
And from now on, my responses to Teflon's - or anyone else's comments - on the company will be the same:
"If you would like to discuss this question further, give me a call or email. If I can't answer it to you satisfaction, I'll get you to the right person.
Keith
krichards@national.ca"
Have a nice day too, Teflon and all. Cheers.