Quoting from your own post... "A non-public fact..

Quoting from your own post... "A non-public fact..."... that's my point.  Anyone could have called that station and received the same info.  Just because "someone" or "everyone" didn't call, doesn't mean its not public.  I hardly think you could call a concerned investor someone "working within or close to a listed company".

Using your interpretation of the law, anyone doing some great DD that most others have not found would be in violation of the law if they used that info to buy or sell a stock.  If that were the case, no one could use any information that was not released in a press release.  One couldn't search the internet, search off-line public information, make phone calls, etc.

Again... providing the information was not obtained deceptively, or was information that would of not normally be given out.

And also... neither of my posts address the validity of the information obtained (it could be completely incorrect, I don't know)... I was only commenting on the actions used to obtain it.  I think the method used (using the info provided in the posts) was well within the law... IMO.  Nor am I commenting on the use of that information as it relates to the manor in which the post seems to indicate it was.