You are deflecting, Fanmail. Rather than address
Post# of 36566
(Total Views: 334)
Posted On: 04/23/2021 9:09:02 AM
You are deflecting, Fanmail. Rather than address your earlier opinion about Joe's dark agenda and contention he should be removed, you ignore actual facts addressing those comments and move on to he is now intentionally breaking SEC rules about quiet periods. Even though 1) we've had multiple people here continually complain that Joe isn't giving enough info on China, NGIO, the vaccine process, etc and 2) Joe has specifically said he is guided by attorneys as to what he can and cannot say publicly. Both would indicate that he has knowledge that he has not/can not share at this time, which counter your assertion that he is doing something illegal.
Next, you also failed to provide the board with your solutions regarding how to raise the pps, after again suggesting Joe is at fault for not doing "something" for that to occur. You just don't say what that something is, nor do you offer any suggestions. But finger pointing seems to be pretty easy for you.
As for being an "investor", I highly doubt it. Investors don't try to raise doubt, confusion and fear for other investors using only supposition, innuendo and opinion, while ignoring facts. Shorts do; trolls do; but not true owners of a company.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment, and suppose you really do own this stock. If that is the case, then you purchased it without doing much research, since you didn't know about Joe's history with the company (or did you intentionally lie hoping that no posters would catch it?). That leads me to conclude that you are now posting as "revenge" for your loss. It strikes me that any loss you've suffered is far more on you and your uninformed purchase than it is on any of the company's or CEO's actions.
Final thought - I seem to remember some little company called Amazon was laughed at because they were a bookseller, and nobody beat a path to their door, either (I, like an idiot, sold AMZN for a paltry 30% gain around 2001 - at less than $30/share). Seems like time has shown that their 'better mousetrap' turned out to be pretty good. Maybe the folks here that do own GNBT stock believe that can happen with this company, as well. And maybe we'll be wrong in the end and lose it all. But at least we actually paid attention and made our decisions on the facts that could be developed, rather on some sense of hype or revenge.
Next, you also failed to provide the board with your solutions regarding how to raise the pps, after again suggesting Joe is at fault for not doing "something" for that to occur. You just don't say what that something is, nor do you offer any suggestions. But finger pointing seems to be pretty easy for you.
As for being an "investor", I highly doubt it. Investors don't try to raise doubt, confusion and fear for other investors using only supposition, innuendo and opinion, while ignoring facts. Shorts do; trolls do; but not true owners of a company.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment, and suppose you really do own this stock. If that is the case, then you purchased it without doing much research, since you didn't know about Joe's history with the company (or did you intentionally lie hoping that no posters would catch it?). That leads me to conclude that you are now posting as "revenge" for your loss. It strikes me that any loss you've suffered is far more on you and your uninformed purchase than it is on any of the company's or CEO's actions.
Final thought - I seem to remember some little company called Amazon was laughed at because they were a bookseller, and nobody beat a path to their door, either (I, like an idiot, sold AMZN for a paltry 30% gain around 2001 - at less than $30/share). Seems like time has shown that their 'better mousetrap' turned out to be pretty good. Maybe the folks here that do own GNBT stock believe that can happen with this company, as well. And maybe we'll be wrong in the end and lose it all. But at least we actually paid attention and made our decisions on the facts that could be developed, rather on some sense of hype or revenge.
(9)
(0)