Deleted from IHUB. They allow only what they want
Post# of 403
Deleted from IHUB. They allow only what they want to hear;
"Pitts77h, all of the points I have raised which you have quoted in your post are suppositions. You can tell this by the fact that they are more often than not posted as questions.
They are certainly not assumptions, guesses, or statements made on behalf of EEGC and their "partners". They are always raised in the alternative to try and show how an absolute statement, such as those statements often made by you, are almost bound to be wrong.
An "assumption" would be that you are either not that bright or deliberately misrepresenting the truth.
A "guess" would be that you are either one of Messrs. Trenham or Lawton or their supporters, cited in a Federal Securities Action brought by the Company and MB.
An "incorrect statement" would be one of the following all published by you:
“Even though no papers have been filed and no money has changed hands after 9 months.” [According to you, this reflects the relationship between Empire and TXO];
“All they do say is "an Alternative Investment Market (AIM) listed London entity which holds established producing international oil and gas assets and interests in a waste oil processing business that may benefit from our technology." I don't believe TXO has a waste oil business, so there's more reason to believe it is not TXO than to believe it is.” TXO has an interest in The Grand Bahama Group which does have a waste oil business.
“That would also explain how he [MB] intends to somehow blend coal of different types and qualities into one product.” [Where and when has he said that?]
“As to my first question, this statement is likewise FALSE.
Quote:
________________________________________
Empire has sold a 49% stake in return for USD $5 million funding by way of a convertible loan agreement
________________________________________
It was contained in this PR from June 3rd, 2011.“
[In previous posts you refer to the relationship between TXO and TOGL announced at that time.]
“Than why suggest it DID have anything to do with money laundering evasion?” [clearly, I didn’t]
"Why would you suggest that EEGC breaking the law is a meritorious argument? [clearly, I didn't]
“The reality is simple: No funding. No cash. No rigs. Lots of PR noise and fluff.”
“He's not devaluing flare gas, Faser, et al. They simply aren't any more real than the things in the list above. They have no value.”
“I used to argue against the "Lottery" comparison - since no lottery in the world offers worse odds than EEGC”
The list could go on, perhaps someone should moderate to the Moderator.................
Brian Jackson
(0)
(0)