RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Alert!, Alert!I would have probably done the same thing as them. I have seen nothing out of the ordinary with the trading here. We go up when there is more demand than supply and down when there is no demand. End of story, lets move along to the next step in the development of the company.
1student wrote: Hello Lire02
A response was received after market close today, from somebody authorized to reply to my query by NanoXplore executive suite representatives.
Such a response to my queries was sent by somebody utilizing the following NanoXplore web address <invest@nanoxplore.ca>.
To summarize utilizing my own words and my unique interpretative skills in determining precisely what NanoXplore C-Suite and the company board of directors collectively intended for me to clearly understand when reading the company's reply to my queries, I will simply suggest that the NanoXplore representative in question may as well have told me to go flock myself.
They may as well have told me that they don't have to tell NanoXplore minority share holders sweet flock all, as they did not consider such company specific information to be 'relevant' to nor important enough to facilitate my need to adequately assess and better understand whether such intentionally withheld, clearly determinant and clearly important information could be utilized in my ongoing scrutinization of my investment in NanoXplore's publicly listed securities.
They essentially told me to fack-off and in my estimation suggested that they full well knew the folks over at IIROC, those representatives at the 'AMF' and any other Canadian equities issuers regulatory authority representatives collectively would side with NanoXplore representatives, when being asked to review the collective conduct of NanoXplore's executive suite members and the persons comprising the company's board of directors.
Never have I been made to understand that I, as a minority NanoXplore share holder and as a shareholder who was intentionally denied otherwise 'exclusively shared information' (see the ceo.com representative's statements which were recently presented here by Gordgeous) and was therefore discriminated upon and intentionally denied the ability to seek to protect my investment after due consideration of such intentionally unemphasized and withheld infromation, should simply 'flock-off and mind my own business'.
The preceding is in fact representative of the very response I received yesterday from NanoXplore representatives.
What say you Lire02? In your estimation, has something 'very fishy occurred?