In past filings the company noted the use of Twitt
Post# of 22940
(Total Views: 406)
Posted On: 06/25/2019 3:37:12 PM
Re: shearing_sheep #22090
In past filings the company noted the use of Twitter as a means of public disclosure. Don't remember which one but the issue came up prior and it was in a filing (buried deep).
I was referring to James and the IRMuse Twitter handle morphing into the @IRMoneyMatters handle which was handled by Sphere International. All involved made it seem like they were completely seperate entities but the way they tweeted and communicated with shareholders didn't change. The primary point I was making was Bill specifically called James or his group the company's PR rep and their contact information was listed on official company Press Releases as the PR contact. So Bill can't claim the company or he had no responsibility for what James or any of their supposed reps said in conference calls or through the Twitter feed. They were speaking directly on behalf of the company and James even said so during the conference call.
As far as the MRVBs, those were apparently just another of a long string of lies or fraud foisted on the shareholders. They were supposed to be regenerative and provide revenues. They were supposed to buyback shares automatically and support the share price. IR repeatedly claimed it would prevent a no bid scenario. List goes on and on. This was before the e bikes and trikes, the sugar deals, the wind farms, bourbon commodities, and then the white paper trying to tag onto the Bitcoin craze.
In one of the commodity deals they tweeted would be worth over a $billion in PROFITS before they eventually changed that to revenues instead of profits.
Did shareholders ever find out what that $2 million contract with Angus got us?
With that being said, they still could use Twitter as an open disclosure format since they had previously noted it in their filings. I think it was right around the time the @IRMuse handle was created because a shareholder publicly challenged them for blocking shareholders on the feed. If I am remembering correctly, it was in a 10Q after that happened.
I was referring to James and the IRMuse Twitter handle morphing into the @IRMoneyMatters handle which was handled by Sphere International. All involved made it seem like they were completely seperate entities but the way they tweeted and communicated with shareholders didn't change. The primary point I was making was Bill specifically called James or his group the company's PR rep and their contact information was listed on official company Press Releases as the PR contact. So Bill can't claim the company or he had no responsibility for what James or any of their supposed reps said in conference calls or through the Twitter feed. They were speaking directly on behalf of the company and James even said so during the conference call.
As far as the MRVBs, those were apparently just another of a long string of lies or fraud foisted on the shareholders. They were supposed to be regenerative and provide revenues. They were supposed to buyback shares automatically and support the share price. IR repeatedly claimed it would prevent a no bid scenario. List goes on and on. This was before the e bikes and trikes, the sugar deals, the wind farms, bourbon commodities, and then the white paper trying to tag onto the Bitcoin craze.
In one of the commodity deals they tweeted would be worth over a $billion in PROFITS before they eventually changed that to revenues instead of profits.
Did shareholders ever find out what that $2 million contract with Angus got us?
With that being said, they still could use Twitter as an open disclosure format since they had previously noted it in their filings. I think it was right around the time the @IRMuse handle was created because a shareholder publicly challenged them for blocking shareholders on the feed. If I am remembering correctly, it was in a 10Q after that happened.
(0)
(0)