decisions because of providing Tranparency, both positive and negative, then I'll proudly accept that.

Your whole post provides only one truth, you're against "full disclosure"

It's YOU who wants to selectively allow access of information to investors.

You're so scared of Truthful information that helps to give a more balanced view of the company and events surrounding it, that you can't resist to color anything that isn't "rah rah" as being motivated to keep folks from buying shares in the company.

I'v been writing about what was truthful information indicating negative aspects of this company for over 4 long years, you on the other hand have been criticizing those kinds of disclosures the entire time

From 2008 to 2012, the company had lost tens of millions of dollars, failed at almost every turn, underwent huge delays, and provided horrible confused leadership resulting in the stock price dropping all the way down to 5 cents.

I think those who decided to buy in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 wished they had more information, not less; ... and

those who didn't buy at those much higher prices are grateful that they had access (from here or wherever) to information which provided them with enough of a balanced view of the company that they decided to hold back and saved themselves tremendous anxiety and up to 90% of their investment.

You're on the wrong side of the argument, and the historical record.