"what you are now advocating is the exact opposite of what you were preaching before. Now you encourage for the company to go dark"
No Bmyk, I am not in any way encouraging the company to go dark. That is just a silly statement. First, they are dark and have have been dark for a very long time. As a shareholder I was very frustrated with their darkness. So I wanted to go after them. I started an action against SCEI in which my own attorney told me if he was defending SCEI it was "plausible" that he too would advise them to go dark. I found that really contradictory. So I got in contact with my personal attorney to set me up with a securities attorney. I had lunch with him on Saturday and then posted the gist of the conversation.
That conversation changed my view on ABAT and SCEI 180 degrees.Two weeks ago, I was told by my CPA, "Many companies are being sued in class action lawsuits and still file with the SEC." At the time, I agreed with the statement. But it never, "NEVER" dawned on me that the cost of the lawsuit alone could put them out of business.
So I am not encouraging them to go dark. I am starting to understand why almost all Chinese RTO's are dark.
"So I am not encouraging them to go dark. I am starting to understand why almost all Chinese RTO's are dark."
Exactly. They are doing this to protect only themselves and not the shareholders. The shareholders don't matter to them anymore and haven't in a while. From their action, I'm not even sure if they even mattered to Mr. (F)(u) to begin with.
One of the factors that will determine the value of a company's pps is based on quarterly reports and financial statements, that will give an indication on the financial health of the company and progress. If these are purposely falsified or omitted from being reported at all, then it will result in the price drop. Supporting Mr. (F)(u) and his cronies in their agenda of continuing to stay dark just to protect themselves, NOT THE SHAREHOLDERS mind you, fully knowing what the result will be in regards to share price, can only be attributed to be an opinion of someone who might be working for ABAT, or trying to discourage others from fighting for what's their right and what is right.
The other explanation for your flip-flops could be that you really do not care whether you loose money in this stock or not, but kindda hard to believe as you seem to be both emotionally and financially invested in this as you post on this MB frequently and often.
= I am not in any way encouraging the company to go dark. That is just a silly statement.
Wow! You and twisty are mentally ill or you are a very poor conman. You stated many times you agree with them going dark and now you are saying it is "silly" to suggest you are encouraging it. Which side of your face are you going to be talking out of tomorrow?
= I started an action against SCEI in which my own attorney told me if he was defending SCEI it was "plausible" that he too would advise them to go dark. I found that really contradictory.
No, Jim... it isn't contradictory. It is in the #$%$'s best interests to go dark and it is in the shareholder's best interests for them to continue to file and be transparent. There is no contradiction. This is how it always was and always will be. Like I said... you used to look at it from the perspective of a shareholder and now you are looking at it from the perspective of the #$%$s with something to hide. YOU are the only thing that is contradictory.