Gary,...you appear to contradict your self. i'll e

Gary,...you appear to contradict your self. i'll elaborate,...

you are suggesting to Howard that he received some type of insider information and if he has it then it should be made public.
you are basically stating,... when a person, any person, visits a company, any company, they are given non-public information. that is the assumption you are making.

but a few sentences down you state,....

"I've enjoyed seeing other companies before, but other than adding a face to a name and gaining an overall impression of what they were doing,

I can't say I received anything that wasn't known by other investors."


ah,...you're admitting that when anyone (You, Howard, Bob, Eric) visits a company, this 'nothing new' phenomena will most likely be their experience. meaning,...no insider information was shared,

so which is it ??? it can't be both ways,...but you are siding with both ways.

companies always share non-public information to total personal strangers (investors) and you are also stating that a person (a fellow investor) never gets anything more than what investors already know.

i guess by siding on both sides of the argument,...you'll win one of the debates.