I'll start my answer by saying that I get ticked when small things are done involving me, like removing a post, or posting things like I'm a ZEN basher. I don't think they're justified, and I respond accordingly. The chief situation is complicated, and I can understand some people taking it as a betrayal. I don't, because he was doing what any investor should be doing, selling some shares to recoup your initial investment, and because he said he would sell some at a particular time. I don't blame him at all for not saying anything about his initial sells. First, because it might start a run on the shares (which I think eventually happened anyway), and second, because it's his right to handle his shares as he sees fit. In fact, I believe he actually had twice the number of shares he intended due to doubling down after RocketRed got him annoyed.
Now, the only thing anyone should have a beef about is if he was selling shares while touting the stock. And I can just hear a lot of you going "that's exactly what happened!". But is it? Let's look at that situation. Some of you have LOTS of ZEN shares, hundreds of thousands for some (millions for BNStrader). Now if ZEN goes back up to, say, $2, are some of you going to sell some to make sure you get some money this time? And are you going to announce it as you're doing it? And are you still not going to maintain your positive posts with regards to ZEN's future? That, I believe, is what chief did. Sold some to get some cash out (at 5000 shares/day, back when volume was much higher). Kept lots hoping for higher, so therefore maintained his optimism that the price would still go higher, and it was still a good buy.
When that bit of news leaked, the shit hit the fan. But I and a lot of others, don't see anything egregious in that chain of events. It seems like a reasonable solution to having a whack of shares. If you, Glorieux, were to be discovered to be buying shares just prior to a pumping session, and selling them on the ensueing price rise, wouldn't everyone be pissed at you? I think that is far worse than what you blame chief for. But we'll never know, will we, because you operate privately in your dealings. So you could be doing worse to your fellow shareholders than chief is accused of, but you skate by smelling like a rose because no one knows. It is unfair to treat the chief differently, just because he was a more public figure.
Going back to the start, I get ticked at small things directed at me. So put yourself in chief's shoes when he gets accused of being a criminal, of getting inside information and acting on it, when he simply figured out what was best to be done, all from reading the NRs and hearing the scuttlebutt regarding Cliffs. If something like that happened to me, I'd be furious, full of righteous indignation. And yes, I'd take delight in getting back at the accuser(s).
As for chief admitting he lied, the only time I read anything about that was when he acknowledged he would lie when it was appropriate, and he gave examples. The one I remember was if asked about an ugly child's looks, you would say she looks pretty to spare the feelings of both child and parent. I bet just about everybody would at least consider the lie in a situation like that.
I don't believe chief ever said he would lie to gain advantage, and I don't think he would.
