"...isn't it at least possible that long investors who find themselves
owning part of a 'non-reporting' Pink Sheet company, indeed non
reporting for years and years, might tire of the mystery and move on.
And isn't it possible that being 'non-reporting' might have had some
contribution to the raising of capital in general?"
one who replies, "Is it 'possible'? Hmmm. Could be..... Or it couldn't
be. I know what to do: Let's get some data."
say you to this odd suggestion? How would your rapier wit dismiss the
bizarre notion that arguments should be decided by appeal to data?
PS It had been a long time, months maybe, since I last read one of Darl's messages. You poor folks who seem to feel obliged to read and respond to Darl's posts, please don't on account of me.