elucido – In Stockhouse Post #32091987 on January 29, 2013, you wrote (yellow highlights added by me for emphasis):
Oh look, the drunken eurotrash has decided to stop by and grace us with his worthless opinion! This is the iD10t who is still blabbering on about missing documents, LOL! Hey meathead, the reason TUO has not mentioned them is because they never existed, but keep sipping on the koolaid ernesto!
Read more at http://www.stockhouse.com/bullboards/messagedetail.aspx?p=0&m=32091987&l=0&r=0&s=AMK&t=LIST#yqEsLherhmRFwvLS.99
Question: What is the "them" that TUO has not mentioned and the “they” that never existed? Kindly clarify the meaning of your statement. The reason that I ask is that, except for what has been reported, I don't know the facts underlying the litigation between AMK and TUO -- and I want to better understand the merits of each side's position.
Disclosure and Disclaimer: I own shares of TUO, and this is not investment advice. In this post, I am exercising my fundamental human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I'm not providing legal advice, and I'm not accusing anyone of wrongdoing. I had absolutely no involvement with Post #32091987 by elucido on January 29, 2013, and I’m merely re-posting it for Stockhouse discussion purposes. The highlights and question reflect my opinions and desire for the truth. I urge all readers of this post to consider the context of this freewheeling, anything-goes "bull" board on Stockhouse -- and I emphatically suggest that it is not reasonable for anyone to rely upon anything that I have written or take offense; after all, it is just a silly "bull" board which contains lively back-and-forth debate.