sorry - previous message was posted to the wrong b
Post# of 22940
Posted On: 02/10/2016 10:43:01 AM
sorry - previous message was posted to the wrong board.
with respect to admin/blocking posters - any obvious bashing/bashers from the iHub board should be immediately blocked (such as crowin). does nothing to provide substantial debate or provide pros and cons in a constructive format.
he refused to disavow himself from the company, refused to address my direct counters to his claims (when i put all the facts/reasons in clear writing point by point), and is allowed to flat out lie with impunity on the other board. if it is allowed to go on here - this board will quickly become as useless as the other.
if a poster refuses to affirm/deny involvement with the company, lenders, MMs, etc. etc - they are not impartial. the primary reason to ignore the request is putting out falsehoods in the public domain in which they can later be accused of fraud/securities manipulation. it is much easier for them to ignore and come back later. at least on this board, any poster that is challenged will not have their post deleted or be banned. any poster that willfully refuses to affirm/deny should be banned.
other than Twitter and email - i have had no direct contact/dealings with anyone or any entity that is part of TPAC or has done business in any way, shape, or form with TPAC in an insider/confidential fashion. If I have, they were/are unknown to me. for example - i work with many manufacturers including Timken. while i havent worked with them directly for years, there is no relationship with anyone i had prior that would have had any influence on TPAC and if they did later (after I worked with them) I would have no way of knowing. that leaves little to no room for ambiguity or semantics later but does account for any coincidental relationships that were unknown and/or non influential.
with respect to admin/blocking posters - any obvious bashing/bashers from the iHub board should be immediately blocked (such as crowin). does nothing to provide substantial debate or provide pros and cons in a constructive format.
he refused to disavow himself from the company, refused to address my direct counters to his claims (when i put all the facts/reasons in clear writing point by point), and is allowed to flat out lie with impunity on the other board. if it is allowed to go on here - this board will quickly become as useless as the other.
if a poster refuses to affirm/deny involvement with the company, lenders, MMs, etc. etc - they are not impartial. the primary reason to ignore the request is putting out falsehoods in the public domain in which they can later be accused of fraud/securities manipulation. it is much easier for them to ignore and come back later. at least on this board, any poster that is challenged will not have their post deleted or be banned. any poster that willfully refuses to affirm/deny should be banned.
other than Twitter and email - i have had no direct contact/dealings with anyone or any entity that is part of TPAC or has done business in any way, shape, or form with TPAC in an insider/confidential fashion. If I have, they were/are unknown to me. for example - i work with many manufacturers including Timken. while i havent worked with them directly for years, there is no relationship with anyone i had prior that would have had any influence on TPAC and if they did later (after I worked with them) I would have no way of knowing. that leaves little to no room for ambiguity or semantics later but does account for any coincidental relationships that were unknown and/or non influential.
(0)
(0)Trans-Pacific Aerospace (TPAC) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼