Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag
Come on Peter, stop it. You are distorting what I am saying, and as an attorney I'm surprised you would react that way.
I don't take as the gospel truth what a person says on a legally mandated disclosure form any more than I would someone under oath on a witness standard denying something that if he/she were to admit it would be detrimental to his/her case.
You have been excoriating PSA as much as anyone. So now we are to take a face value something said because the SEC requires it? I do not know why Joe sold his shares, and my point is it should never have bern raised in the first place.
Why are we arguing over this?
|
Because you misstated the legal disclosure requirements, and suggested we shouldn't necessarily take the Form 4 at face value when it reports clearly verifiable or falsifiable facts such as when Joe's shares vested and what his trading plan provides - points which you're ignoring. Your analogy to testimony is misplaced in my opinion.
PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your only point was people shouldn't speculate, you should have stopped your post right there. The rest of it clearly is insinuating the Form 4 might be false.
And yes I have very serious issues with PSA, and Joe, but that doesn't mean I am going to insinuate Joe is or may be dumping his shares and lying about the reasons or that that's even a possibility based on the documentation I have seen. This is obviously a routine securities transaction, nothing more, and you're being unfair in my opinion insinuating there is some other possibility.
PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your point was that people shouldn't speculate you could have ended your post right there. But you went on to suggest the possibility the Form 4 might not be truthful.