To further my point, here's my last interchange wi
Post# of 7769
Posted On: 02/10/2014 5:26:10 PM
Re: Bsav88atty #2105
To further my point, here's my last interchange with one of the iHack tools (to which my good friend, Shelly, never replied): Shelly - Please allow me to connect the dots. All of the following CHP posts are connected and all of them I have submitted TOS reports:
#14994 - CHP calls out a typo in a recent post attempting to discredit me on the timing between the first time heard about SCRC and the time I bought. I erroneously said I first bought in April instead of August. I could have gone back to my original buy announcement on 8/21, but I was moving quickly and multiii-tasking. So I later sent him a PM telling him my exact buy date and explaining that I did not appreciate him attacking my credibility on something that was clearly an honest mistake that he could have easily determined by reviewing all of my posts on SCRC. Considering he found an earlier post in which I quickly stated when I first heard about SCRC and when I first bought, he clearly proved that he is capable of determining when I first bought instead of trying to discredit me. This is a TOS violation - personal attack.
#15084 - This one is a TOS because it references my private message to him. Simply adding other subjects after addressing the private message and my credibility does not clean a TOS violation.
#15100 - This is a continuation of his personal attack against me related to the CEO's gift of shares to a relative. CHP opined that this violated the disclosure rules and was unethical. While CHP focuses on the CEO, any alleged violation is also directed at me. My whole point during this dialogue was the CEO made the proper gift disclosure in the Form 4, that he said he gifted the shares to a relative is not material and, thus no violation of the rules or ethics. CHP is very good at trying to word his posts to skirt around the rules here, but his implicit attack against my credibility is clear. And to state it more clearly, what he is essentially stating is that if the CEO violated the rules and was unethical in disclosing material information to me (which is completely false), then I also violated the rules and was unethical as the alleged recipient. This is a TOS violation, as it is a well-hidden continuation of his personal attack.
#15119 - This is more of the same continuation on the gifted shares issue - TOS violation as a personal attack. This is the same theme, part of the tainted fruit, all of which should be removed from this board.
#15123 - Here, again, CHP is now incorrectly accusing the CEO of having calls with others about material information (it is implicit in his post and the continuation of the prior posts), that CHP is including me in his reference to "others". So, this is another TOS violation that should be removed.
#15151 - Which brings me to this last post and should help you understand how that although CHP's skilled writing style enables him to appear as though he is following iHub's TOS, his reference here again to "others" implicitly includes me.
To that end, I respectfully request that you remove all of the above posts as TOS violations.
Kind regards,
Bsav
#14994 - CHP calls out a typo in a recent post attempting to discredit me on the timing between the first time heard about SCRC and the time I bought. I erroneously said I first bought in April instead of August. I could have gone back to my original buy announcement on 8/21, but I was moving quickly and multiii-tasking. So I later sent him a PM telling him my exact buy date and explaining that I did not appreciate him attacking my credibility on something that was clearly an honest mistake that he could have easily determined by reviewing all of my posts on SCRC. Considering he found an earlier post in which I quickly stated when I first heard about SCRC and when I first bought, he clearly proved that he is capable of determining when I first bought instead of trying to discredit me. This is a TOS violation - personal attack.
#15084 - This one is a TOS because it references my private message to him. Simply adding other subjects after addressing the private message and my credibility does not clean a TOS violation.
#15100 - This is a continuation of his personal attack against me related to the CEO's gift of shares to a relative. CHP opined that this violated the disclosure rules and was unethical. While CHP focuses on the CEO, any alleged violation is also directed at me. My whole point during this dialogue was the CEO made the proper gift disclosure in the Form 4, that he said he gifted the shares to a relative is not material and, thus no violation of the rules or ethics. CHP is very good at trying to word his posts to skirt around the rules here, but his implicit attack against my credibility is clear. And to state it more clearly, what he is essentially stating is that if the CEO violated the rules and was unethical in disclosing material information to me (which is completely false), then I also violated the rules and was unethical as the alleged recipient. This is a TOS violation, as it is a well-hidden continuation of his personal attack.
#15119 - This is more of the same continuation on the gifted shares issue - TOS violation as a personal attack. This is the same theme, part of the tainted fruit, all of which should be removed from this board.
#15123 - Here, again, CHP is now incorrectly accusing the CEO of having calls with others about material information (it is implicit in his post and the continuation of the prior posts), that CHP is including me in his reference to "others". So, this is another TOS violation that should be removed.
#15151 - Which brings me to this last post and should help you understand how that although CHP's skilled writing style enables him to appear as though he is following iHub's TOS, his reference here again to "others" implicitly includes me.
To that end, I respectfully request that you remove all of the above posts as TOS violations.
Kind regards,
Bsav
(0)
(0)ScripsAmerica Inc (SCRC) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼