You misrepresent what actually happened. Your "1/10th of 1 percent of total O/S change of volume a spike" is ignoring the reality staring you in the face. The spike on the 30th/31st was actually around a 100% change in volume from the average of the the 22nd through the 29th. And, BTW, the bashing was intense beginning around the 16th/17th, when the PPS was at .17. You push complete misrepresentation, playing with ineffective averages, of the true period in question. You are trying to deceive IMO, ignoring the fact that even you put up the numbers for all to see. Do you really think the people here are THAT stupid? Blind?
As for your argument that it was tax loss selling, I acknowledge that could have been part of it and always have. But the reality is twofold, as I mentioned and you chose to ignore. Again, tax laws were and are expected to change (unless our politician friends opt to stop the reversion of tax law to old status - with no long term capital gain consideration - which is unlikely in the opinion of most recognizing national debt). Thus, it was important to record the buy before the end of the 2009 tax year. The other, assuming the selling parties were paying any attention to their investment at all, was the fact that their was the possibility (per a conversation with the examiner supervisor with either Deb or Laurie) that the examiner on the '336 would act around the time immediately after the 60 day patentee statement period was to end, around the middle of Jan I believe it was. Thus, if the tax loss seller was on the ball at all, the sells would have been done NLT mid Dec '09 (allowing buy back for the "event" without having a wash sell). The fact that what actually transpired in this regard, in 20/20 hindsight, was different than what was broadly considered a strong possibility - an expectation - does not alter the fact that the expectation existed at the time. The poster in question had previously stated his own expectation of what would happen (about two months prior) using the terms "slam dunk".
And it wasn't simply just a disgruntled shareholder voicing a negative opinion about the BoD. It was a disgruntled shareholder voicing a negative opinion about the BoD, repeatedly, 10-25 times. Once, even twice - understandable. 10-25 times? Or are you suggesting that ease is insane? Maybe just more forgetful than you?
As for my post you link, I continue to stand by that post, as it is a reasonable question, all things considered. And yes, the logical answer to that question is....
Now after having had to explain all that, again, suggesting you either don't pay attention at all to what's going on with your investment, I guess I'll have to reinforce with the fact there, today, exists a broad expectation that something is going to happen on the '336 at any time. Even Ronran made reference to it a couple of times in the last couple of days. But I suppose that's news to you....or you forgot.
And to say there were those who defend the BOD arguing that it's essentially not their fault, you might read those arguments again, because here you completely misrepresent once again. The arguments had primarily to due with gross exagerations, if I recall correctly, i.e., lies.
Your analysis and conclusions are as incredibly weak as your supposed ignorance as to what was happening at the time. Really, it wasn't that long ago.
And BTW, these diversion posts rehashing what has already been thoroughly addressed won't make anyone here forget the blatant manipulation of this board by a certain Hub Leader. One exception I suppose - you might forget. After all it's been over a week since he went nuts with his power.
SGE
