following -

He has now pointed out at least 3 times that EDIG "positive postings" on Agora have no affect their sp. He has even gone so far to have stated "EDIG is trading exactly where they should be" or something very similar. Which brings up 2 interesting questions/points. EDIG lost around $900,000 the first 9 months of their present fiscal year as last reported (going by memory, corrections welcome). So without fundamentals (as Ron points out is the case with PTSC because of negative earnings) , how does Ron come to the conclusion that EDIG sp is not in great part affected by the sentiment created by the positive Agora postings. I would very well argue that EDIG should be trading at 1 cent or less given it's negative earnings, uncertain prospects, and history of NEVER making money. So what magic formula does Ron use to say that EDIG is trading exactly where it should be, and how does he KNOW, since he only deals in facts, that positive postings on their Agora board hasn't artificially buoyed the stock to trade between 8 and 9 cents.

Lastly, Ron has also on at least 3 occassions given us HIS definition of bashing, completely disrespecting the fact that some people might not agree with HIS definition. By my definition, regardless of whether someone is "just stating facts" constant repitition of the same negative facts is bashing. EVERY company, even Warren Buffet ones, has warts and negative aspects. I have yet to find any company that is "perfect". So everyone has the choice of either talking positively, negatively, or a combination of both. If someone chooses to talk only, or 90% of the time, negatively about their supposed investment, I consider that bashing. Give me a thumbs up if you agree with me so that maybe Ron can become aware that not everyone agrees with him on what HE considers bashing.