At 10:33am, the price was $0.645, the Bid, both down 6.5 percent or $0.05 from yesterday's $0.695 close, with the Ask set at $0.664 and modest volume of 305,251 shares.
Despite that, investors were ignoring some good news: a formal statement from the National Petroleum that specifically finds that the Council had no problem with ERHC's proposed awards "because its rights were granted by treaty" and are not subject to debate (nor is any part of the treaty).
In that statement, the NPC set up a special committee to review the awards and make recommendations to Parliament, which apparently will meet today or tomorrow, not yesterday as first reported here.
Update, 4:00pm, 5/17/05: The close appears to be $0.665, accounting for some late-posting but timely trades. The volume ended at 1,115,00 shares.
Update, 3:59pm, 5/17/05: The price is $0.67, which looks like where it will close today. The Bid is still $0.665, and the Ask has dropped to $0.67. Volume is 1,110,500.
Update, 3:55pm, 5/17/05: The price is $0.673, the Ask, and the Bid is unchanged as volume lifts to 1,108,300.
Update, 3:53pm, 5/17/05: A major statement from the MLSTP, the ruling party in Parliament, has been posted "To The Press." It argues for a decision in Sao Tome's courts concerning Block 4, in particular, which ERHC and Noble Energy have won with their fast-track drilling program. Here it is:
NOTA DE IMPRENSA
O MLSTP/PSD acompanhou atentamente os últimos desenvolvimentos que tiveram lugar com relação ao dossier petróleo, nomeadamente a reunião do Conselho Nacional do Petróleo de 13 de Maio e as declarações de Sua Excelência o Presidente da República Fradique de Menezes, na sequência dessa reunião.
O MLSTP/PSD analisou detidamente o Comunicado do Conselho Nacional do Petróleo bem como as declarações do Senhor Presidente Fradique de Menezes e procurou colher mais informações que pudessem lançar alguma luz sobre os meandros desse processo, permitindo-lhe definir o seu posicionamento em defesa dos interesses da nação santomense, tendo chegado às seguintes conclusões:
1. O Sr. Presidente da República, ao anunciar, na passada sexta-feira, a sua saída do Conselho Nacional do Petróleo, veio, finalmente, dar razão ao nosso partido. Com efeito o MLSTP/PSD sempre disse que o Presidente da República não tinha nada que fazer num organismo deste tipo e que a sua presença no CNP estava ferida de inconstitucionalidade. O Sr. Presidente da República, infelizmente, recusou-se sempre a ouvir a voz da razão, assenhorou-se do processo que vem um papel de subalternidade. Se a decisão do Senhor Presidente da República peca apenas por ser demasiado tardia, cabe ainda perguntar porque é que só agora esta decisão é tomada pelo Senhor Presidente da República e o que estaria por detrás dela precisamente neste momento, após os males que essa presença terá eventualmente causado à Nação?
2. O MLSTP/PSD entende que é chegado o momento de parar com as improvisações e ilegalidades que vêm marcando a gestão do dossier petróleo e, por isso, apela ao Governo para, assumindo as suas reais responsabilidades, tomar medidas no sentido da definição de uma Política Nacional do Petróleo que inclua as estruturas mais adequadas para a gestão de um processo tão complexo quão importante.
3. O MLSTP/PSD nota que, com pertinência, o Conselho Nacional do Petróleo constatou que, "houve insuficiências formais e de procedimento no processo de adjudicação"; todavia, reafirma a sua posição em como houve irregularidades (não apenas insuficiências de forma e de procedimento) e que essas irregularidades viciaram o
processo.
4. Com efeito no relatório de avaliação das propostas para o leilão de 2004 feito pelo Comité especializado da Autoridade Conjunta afirma-se claramente no seu ponto 21.1. que, devido a limitações de tempo, "a due diligence de 2003 foi adoptada". Isto é grave quando se sabe que a due diligence é uma investigação rigorosa que permite saber quem, dentre as empresas que se candidatam ao leilão tem ou não tem capacidade técnica, comercial e financeira para participar no concurso claro que todo o processo está viciado por falta de bases essencial para uma adequada tomada de decisão. Como então falar de "insuficiências formais", que não "viciaram o processo"?
5. Entretanto pergunta-se como é que um organismo como o Conselho Nacional do Petróleo, após mais de dez horas de reunião, passa por cima do facto essencial que é o de o seu Presidente, no caso o Presidente Fradique de Menezes, estar a violar a Lei-quadro das receitas petrolíferos, a Lei 8/2004 quando nomeou e manteve em altos cargos pessoas com expressos no negócio do petróleo.
6. Será que o "bater com a porta" do Ministro dos Recursos Naturais, Chefe da Delegação Santomense à última reunião do Conselho Ministerial Conjunto, Eng. Arlindo de Carvalho, encerra elementos de explicação que permitiriam à Nação uma melhor compreensão de todo este imbróglio? Como entender, de facto, os "enormes interesses
particulares e obscuros que o processo do petróleo tem vindo a conhecer." a que o Ministro se refere? Quais os "enormes constrangimentos que o mesmo vem conhecendo" . e que lhe "têm impedido de dar passos rumo ao desenvolvimento pretendido para o
nosso pequeno país" como ele próprio diz na sua carta?
7. O MLSTP/PSD manifesta ainda a sua perplexidade perante a existência de um sem número de "coincidências" que exigem muito mas muito esforço para se poder entender e explicar. Trata-se concretamente do um conjunto de negócios, todos eles articulados e em volta de São Tomé e Príncipe e do dossier petróleo e que não é nada
fácil entender e explicar convenientemente:
* Se bem que há mais de seis meses, repetimos seis meses, o Conselho Ministerial Conjunto tivesse instruído a Autoridade Conjunta para abrir uma conta num banco de 1.ª categoria onde pudessem ser depositados os 123 milhões de dólares do 1.º leilão de blocos petrolíferos, esse dinheiro encontra-se até hoje, inexplicavelmente, depositado num banco nigeriano de 2.ª categoria e até há dias sem render juros;
* Curiosamente o referido banco pertence ao mesmo grupo financeiro que instalou recentemente um novo banco em São Tomé e Príncipe e terá criado uma empresa a quem, no quadro deste último leilão, se pretenderia atribuir 5% de interesses participativos exactamente no bloco 4 considerado como o melhor e o de maior potencialidade dentre os seis blocos postos a concurso.
8. Finalmente a questão dos interesses nacionais. Após tudo o que dissemos deixamos a cada um dos cidadãos deste país a conveniente ponderação e o julgamento sobre essa questão.
9. O MLSTP/PSD renova por isso e uma vez mais o seu apelo de 9 de Maio ao Procurador-geral da República e estende igualmente este apelo aos demais órgãos com competência legal para o efeito e nomeadamente à Assembleia Nacional e aos Tribunais. Nesse sentido, o MLSTP/PSD instruiu já o seu Grupo Parlamentar para que faça diligencias no
sentido da criação de uma Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito que possa esclarecer completamente toda esta questão, apurar responsabilidades e informar devidamente a Nação.
São Tomé, 17 de Maio de 2005.
Here is Homeport's "synthesis" wjat it all means:
In nine points, the STP´s main governing party basically rehashes its criticism of the awards process and the president's handling of the affair.
It concludes (P-9) by renewing its call to Attorney General for full inquiry and extends the challenge to all "competent bodies", including the courts and parliament. For its part, the MLSTP says it's instructed its bench for action to create a Parliamentary Inquiry Commission to "completely clarify" the issues and "determine responsibilities."
P-1: President de Menezes resignation from National Petroleum Council justifies party's earlier criticism. "Why only now?" has he stepped down, it asks.
P-2: It's time to end "improvisations and illegalities" in awards process. Govt must "assume its responsibilities" and "define" a National Oil Policy.
P-3: While NPC acknowledged "formal and procedural insufficiencies" in the process, the MLSTP reaffirms its view that there were "irregularities" that "perverted" the process.
P-4: Tis "grave" that JDA based its Round 2 findings on DD from first 2003 round due to a "lack of time."
P-5: The NPC passed over Menezes´ violation of the oil revenue managemenet law in his naming persons with vested interests to "high posts" in process.
P-6: Questions nature of the "huge and obscure interests" Natural Resources Min Arlindo Carvalho cited in resigning yesterday.
P-7: Questions deposit of B-1 USD 123 Mn signing bonus in "2nd category" Nigerian bank, where it's gained no interest in six months; bank belongs to group that recently opened STP branch and would be awarded 5% stake in coveted B-4 in current round.
P-8: MLSTP calls on nation to "ponder and pass judgement" on recent developments.
"Boa noite," as one'd say at this time of day in STP.
By Homeport, at 6:03 PM
Update, 3:40pm, 5/17/05: We have hit 1,102,300 shares of volume, one of the better days lately, with the Bid and Ask unchanged and the price still at $0.665.
Update, 3:27pm, 5/17/05: A note to investors: Judging from the protracted silence in the Nigerian press about the awards and the turmoil in Sao Tome, I think we can anticipate that when we do start hearing from them again, the awards will be imminent. There has been nothing at all for almost two weeks now in the 15 Nigerian newspapers we visit daily.
Update, 3:24pm, 5/17/05: The 3:15 Surge has not been notably surgeful; the price has slipped to $0.665, the Bid, and the Ask is at $0.673. Volume is 1,076,300 shares.
Update, 3:11pm, 5/17/05: A Florida jury has awarded financier Ron Perelman $604 million in his long-running suit against Morgan Stanley. The firm hopes to settle.
The price is $0.673, with the Bid at $0.665 and the Ask at $0.675. Volume is now 1,071,300 shares.
Update, 2:57pm, 5/17/05: The price is $0.675, the Ask, as we move close to the 3:15 Surge. The Ask is lower, at $0.673, and volume has reached 1,037,500 shares.
Update, 2:46pm, 5/17/05: We had 14 people in our first ERHC On The Move PalTalk chat session. Unfortunately, I need to get my mike up to speed, and also need to be able to hear folks better. The chat was especially useful for he discussion on Exxon; no one could indicate any knowledge of any drilling they've done in the JDZ.
Update, 2:19pm, 5/17/05: The price is $0.67, athe Bid, and the Ask is $0.675 as volume moves over 1 million to 1,000,300.
Update, 1:17pm, 5/17/05: The price is $0.66, the Ask, and the Bid is $0.655. Volume has reached 950,209 shares.
The volume so far indicates that there may be heavy trading near the close. Which way will it go? Will it push ERHE's share price up or down? Chat with us at PalTalk ("ERHC On The Move," under Groups and Miscellaneous, down at the bottom) and discuss what may influence the price movement at the close today.
Update, 1:12pm, 5/17/05: Anyone who would like to join me PalTalk can do for the next 15-20 minutes at ERHC On The Move, which is under Miscellaneous in the Groups list on PalTalk. Video is enabled.
Update, 12:52pm, 5/17/05: Lots of talk about a sale of 20,000 shares at exactly 12:15pm at $0.60, when the Bid was $0.655. Panic does that to people. Volume is now 929,922 shares and climbing.
Update, 12:37pm, 5/17/05: The price is still $0.66 and volume has shot up to 920,272 shares, while the Bid has slipped to $0.655.
Update, 12:11pm, 5/17/05: ADVN, on 15-minute delay, shows us that of the 40 trades between 10:37 and 11:31, 203,677 were Buys and just 10,875 were Sells. Anyone who thinks bashers are not using this crisis to get their shares cheaply should be educated by that. The Buys began at $0.625 and continued all the way up to $0.665.
The current price is $0.66, the Bid, and the Ask is $0.665, with the volume now at 782,750.
Just got off the phone with Ambassador Howard Jeter's office, and expect our PalTalk chat to occur shortly. We will require registration so as to avoid the mess in other chatrooms. Some readers note that I was just bounced from the PalTalk room run by Dadd1, who also runs the IHUB site, and who for competitive reasons won't allow me to take part in discussions on either site. Better investors would wonder what he has to hide, and better Americans would protest the censorship of my views. Ironically, I won the US Supreme Court case Shea v Reno to combat censorship, and am nonetheless now the victim of it.
Update, 11:57am, 5/17/05: Volume now tops 700K, with the last trade a 20K buy at the $0.665 Ask. The Bid is stuck at $0.66, and volume is 721,435 shares.
Update, 11:35am, 5/17/05: Volume has slowed to a trickle, and now stands at 681,435, with the price $0.655, the Bid, and the Ask at $0.66. Investors have stuck their feet out of the downhill runaway train and managed to stop the decline.
Update, 11:08am, 5/17/05: ERHE has pulled back from its sharp decline, climbing to $0.66, the Bid, with the Ask at $0.665 and volume soaring to 660.883 shares. The prospect that the turmoil in Sao Tome will end with the meeting of parliament and the availability of unusually cheap shares is apparently driving the price back up.
Update, 10:54am, 5/17/05: The price is $0.625, the Bid, while the Ask is at $0.63 and volume has climbed quickly to 587,435 with a substantial selloff underway.
Update, 10:41am, 5/17/05: The price is $0.64, the Bid, and the Ask has fallen to $0.645. Volume is moving more quickly, now to 413,001.
31 comments:
Joe is this the "GOOD NEWS" you are referring to..
if so it does seem encouraging ...
The National Advice of the Oil, in his meeting of 13 of May of 2005 analyzed exhaustively the trial of adjudicação of the blocks 2,3,4,5 and 6 of the Monday and to more recent auction of the zone of joint exploitation between the Republica Democratic of S.Tomé and Prince and the Federal Republic of the Nigeria, having concluded that:
1- HIM it Referred trial of adjudicação of the blocks proposed, in no moment damages the interests of the State Santomense;
2- THE National Advice of the Oil recognizes with foundation in the opinion of the National Agency of the Oil that had insuficiências formal and of procedures in the trial of adjudicação, although the same have not addict the results;
3- In That trial of adjudicação of the blocks, the question of the ERHC did not have any influence in the proposals, having in count the rights already acquired by that company in based on the agreement negotiated in 2001 and renegociado in 2003;
4- Becoming necessary give it know to the others organs of sovereignty the details about him referred trial, is created a commission constituted by members Santomenses of the Joint Ministerial Advice, the Director of the National Agency of the Oil and the President of the Advice of Administration of the Joint Authority, for joined of the Commission Specialized of the Assembleia national clear all of the details relatives to the adjudicação
5- After those explanations, the National Advice of the Oil, insta the members santomenses of the Joint Ministerial Advice, it the diligence having in mind will proceed the conclusion of the trial of adjudicação of him referred blocks;
6- THE National Advice of the Oil, joint to his voice to the other voices of the Country, in vehement appeal to the serenity and to the calm, in the abordagem of all the questions regarding the dossier oil, abstaining each one of the practical one of blameworthy behaviors;
7- THE National Advice of the Oil, reiterates a time more the excellence of the relations of friendship and of existing cooperation in the several domains between the Democratic Republic of S.Tomé and Prince and the Federal Republic of the Nigeria.
Beware of posters on RB that insult Sao Tome with vulgarity and innappriate comments. They do NOT represent the majority of ERHC shareholders.
Some of these posters are probably paid bashers from competing companies who are trying to make ERHC and its shareholders look bad.
Have them tossed.
Yes, that's it. The fact that ERHC is not at the center of this any longer, insofar as the key decision-making body is concerned, should be a great relief to all investors. While the wisdom of granting those rights and the blame for it will continue to play a major role in the turmoilt we're observing, the fact that the NPC says we had no part in the disputed proposals because our rigfhts were guaranteed is an extremely encouraging acknowledgement.
Ken,
Thoughful words appreciated! But, who said I was a man?
Awards will happen very soon. STP is just as anxious to start getting the money as US investors are to see sp growing.
Obrigado!
That post wasn't from me, someone was thanking me for my input. You're welcome, whoever you are.
Although yes I assumed you were a man.
-Ken
dadd does not run the i-hub site fwiw
Dadd1 indicated earlier that he had barred me from the site.
joe, there must have been a misunderstanding. He does not run the I-hub ERHE site.
Who does run it? And who removed the blog as an investor resource?
The moderators removed the investor resource link to the blog. The moderators are chcr, Gigwoof and Balance Builder.
Balance Builder has praised my site as recently as yesterday. Who are these other people?
***Spoke to Sam Dimka Today*** Art4k42002 on EF
1. The JDA is closely monitoring events on Sao Tome The JDA like us will know more after the parliament meets. He welcomes further phone calls.
2. He emphasized that the JDA has always responded in
a "professional" manner and did conduct "extensive research and evaluation" on all the bid proposals. He elaborated on how awards are based not only on signature bonus but on technical expertise, work plans, fast tracking of drilling and local content.
3. He agreed with SFreed's note that if a company such as Noble was awarded Block 4 they would have to pay a $90 million bonus to match Anadarko's bid as it was the highest acceptable bid. So Sao Tome would not even be losing that signature bonus money. I hope I am
correct in hearing that.
4. He read and "greatly appreciates" my Emails to the JDA about going public with the professional research the JDA has conducted in contrast to the false and exaggerated charges of some politicans on Sao Tome. They are currently considering public release of the research.
However, he feels that the most appropriate time to release the awards criteria and research will be when the awards are announced.
5. He continues to feel confident that the JMC awards will be announced as soon as all the political posturing and fussing are over in Sao Tome
6. He is saddened "by the attacks" on the agreements which Sao Tome signed with ERHC on March of 2003. They actually replaced a previous agreement with Sao Tome that would have given away revenue on five blocks for a $5 million dollar investment. He terms the earlier agreement a "sell out".
The new agreement in the context of the JDA presnts a great
opportunity for Sao Tome. When all six blocks are announced (including block 1) they stand ready to collect over $300 million dollars in signature bonus money plus years of oil revenues.
It makes all the current fuss seem so "foolish".
So has Gigwoof Joe. He's one of the moderators. This board had been one of your best supporters and had sent a lot of people to the blog, I think you deeply offended them when you made that post which was full of threats and such, as if they were RB.
Everybody knows they are not, they are very considerate and respectful (never seen an insult there, unlike here and at RB) it's more "they call it like they see it"
My two cents.
If I am off-base about it, why did they remove my blog as a resource, when it is the best and most current resource available to anyone about ERHC Energy?
I apologize to anyone whom I may have offended with the legalese I posted, but I had spoken to a law professor at UCLA and knew what I had to say to set some boundaries on the kind of libels that were occurring. Those who have not participated, or even say they did not, should not feel as though I was talking to them. I was talking to the poisonous few, but I had to make a statement that applies equally to everyone before I can proceed with libel suits.
Joe I'm just a shareholder who's using all available resources, I appreciate your blog most opf the time and I have no intention of telling you what to do, but don't you think the right thing to do would be to go *there* and apologize in person if you really mean to mend fences?
They did list your blog as a resource for a long time, I saw it, then they added some kind disclaimer because i think they were uncomfortable with the way you would spin things, and then the threat did you in.
They saeem like pretty reasonable people, why don't you give it a try?
My two cents.
Joe, you're being a hypocrite...
Why did you remove the post I made here last week, when it contained relevant information about ERHC? No profanity nor vulgarity - not my style, yet you censor me, for speaking my mind and telling you my opinion of you...
Always amazed here...
SH70
ps - do you really not understand why the IH moderator removed your site as a reference? really??? still haven't figured it out? what would it take for you to understand?
I am not permitted to post there, and have not been for some time. I would appreciate it if you would pst the foregoing note to that board for me, though.
SH 70, you are a self-righteous hypocrite. You TOS'd me from Raging Bull, and now you talk to me about censorship. I removed your post because it had to do with legal issues that are developing between you and I as a result of your interference with my work. It was something you were free to post elsewhere if you wanted to air your dirty laundry.
I have tried repeatedly to make peace with you, but you simply persist in being hypocritical, in lying about the content of my posts and my blog. You sold shares last week, you said today: you sold them afew months ago; so that does make you a swing trader, which you deny you are, does it not? I have not sold shares since
early 2004, in contrast, and not one since I started the blog (and I have bought none, either). Yet you without evidence repeatedly accuse me of using the blog to benefit myself. That is a lie you keep telling people, when you in fact are guilty of the very behavior you accuse me of. Why not just conduct a constructive dialogue with me and others?
Joe
For all that you are concerned with your own rights, and their violation by others, perhaps you should consider your duty to respect the rights of others.
I write this referring specifically to your reposting of the pay-per-view Energy Compass article "Sao Tome runs into more problems in JDZ".
Regarding the blog, I like the information, I don't care for either the spin or the posturing.
I post these articles under the "fair use" doctrine of US copyright law. I could not post them without providing an analytical context, or "spin" as you call it. I am not spinning, because I don't want to achieve a particular outcome, as political spinners do. I just want people to understand what is going on with this process and this stock.
Sao Tome Island in an Oil Boom
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/corruption/c1.html
Sao Tome Island in an Oil Boom .
fact is that there may not be any oil at all. in that case they move back into the shade and eat bananas.
"Fair use" supercedes everything. Otherwise, there could be no public debate about anything that is printed, because it's all copyrighted. In America, anyway, no one can inhibit free discussion of even Top Secret material obtained by theft from a location under lock and key, such as the Pentagon Papers. I attened the herarings in the US Supreme Court on that day and think I understand the concept.
Stockhocker70, however, in transmitting the article to me, was in violation of the US Copyright law and the terms of his agreement with Energy Compass.
You note that Block 4 is the one they most want to contest, but it is important to also note that the issue there is with the award of 5% to a company that is part of the consortium that owns the bank which got the block 1 deposit.
So, though it affects ERHE because of the delays, ERHE is not the subject of the issue on that block.
Joe
I am the 'anonymous' 3:26 poster (my only post prior to this), perhaps called 'Johan' from here to avoid confusion.
Thank you for responding to my post. With your motivations for blogging as stated, perhaps 'spin' was the incorrect word... I was mostly thinking of your headlines, which I find often misleading.
Regarding 'fair use', this is not something I know of, nonetheless, it strikes me as wrong to publish a full article for which someone expects to be paid on a free website... I wonder (and do not expect you to answer here, it is inconsequential) why I could not then post the text of a book (either of fiction or fact, perhaps biography) written by someone else online.
Back to ERHE, this stock confuses me, as do many (most!) of the people who discuss it; I'm certainly thankful to be in it only for 'fun'.
I understand from your blog there are some family issues, I wish them all the best.
Johan
Johan, I did not obtain the article from Energy Compass by paying for it; SH70 did. He entered into the agreement with Energy Compass. Such contracts do not bind third parties.
You can't publish a book because your are not engaging in "fair use" - i.e., using the book to comment on something - but merereproduction. Since SH 70 reported our pleas for support to Google, we have had no financial support, as they took away the $500 I earned and could have paid for the article with. Thus there is no profit motive here, and we do indeed engage in analysis.
Joe, I'm following up on my 3:13Pm post. Contrary to what you state in your 3:15Pm post about IHUB they tell me that you ARE permitted to post on the ERHE board there. Your alias is PROCON and it has not been tossed. It was just your message that was deleted because they found it so disapointing and offensive.
Honestly, I find your reply and request for me to post for you a bit disturbing, I'm absolutely not willing to do that. it simply is not my place.
FWIW I agree with Johan, your headlines tend to be misleading, and in fact they often directly contradict what's in your otherwise good content! Some would call this spin, others would call it manipulation, others yet would call it an overly egotistic intellect. Whatever the term, IT MAKES ME REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE and doesn't help me trust you!
COULD your blog be "the best and most current resource available to anyone about ERHC Energy?" Possibly, but not until you gain the kind of trust I just talked about. I think you can, I sincerely hope you do, but based on what I see I'm afraid you have a long way to go.
My two cents.
Sorry for interrupting the vivacious bickering, but thot some of you might find a synthesis of the above MLSTP-PSD statement of interest.
In nine points, the STP´s main governing party basically rehashes its criticism of the awards process and the president's handling of the affair.
It concludes (P-9) by renewing its call to Attorney General for full inquiry and extends the challenge to all "competent bodies", including the courts and parliament. For its part, the MLSTP says it's instructed its bench for action to create a Parliamentary Inquiry Commission to "completely clarify" the issues and "determine responsibilities."
P-1: President de Menezes resignation from National Petroleum Council justifies party's earlier criticism. "Why only now?" has he stepped down, it asks.
P-2: It's time to end "improvisations and illegalities" in awards process. Govt must "assume its responsibilities" and "define" a National Oil Policy.
P-3: While NPC acknowledged "formal and procedural insufficiencies" in the process, the MLSTP reaffirms its view that there were "irregularities" that "perverted" the process.
P-4: Tis "grave" that JDA based its Round 2 findings on DD from first 2003 round due to a "lack of time."
P-5: The NPC passed over Menezes´ violation of the oil revenue managemenet law in his naming persons with vested interests to "high posts" in process.
P-6: Questions nature of the "huge and obscure interests" Natural Resources Min Arlindo Carvalho cited in resigning yesterday.
P-7: Questions deposit of B-1 USD 123 Mn signing bonus in "2nd category" Nigerian bank, where it's gained no interest in six months; bank belongs to group that recently opened STP branch and would be awarded 5% stake in coveted B-4 in current round.
P-8: MLSTP calls on nation to "ponder and pass judgement" on recent developments.
"Boa noite," as one'd say at this time of day in STP.
Anonymnous 5:33, you say, "your headlines tend to be misleading, and in fact they often directly contradict what's in your otherwise good content! Some would call this spin, others would call it manipulation, others yet would call it an overly egotistic intellect. Whatever the term, IT MAKES ME REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE and doesn't help me trust you!"
You must be referring to the one that said "Bad News" and started out. "We're in for another political nightmare." You didn't see what I saw in the article; to you, the events were trivial. That was on May 7, and today is May 17 and we're not sure yet any end is in sight of this "political nightmare." You don't like the fact that I can see that in a few words and that I tell others what I see. You don't like it because you don't like to watch ythe value of your shares sink. But understand this: my shares sink, too, just like yours. The difference is that I don't turn away from what I see because it will make shares sinkl, and I don't shrink from reporting it. But you and your ilk criticize me relentlessly. You can imagine how uncomfortable it makes me to even consider trustng you, who have no identity and not enough integrity to admit you're wrong. You could have taken steps I recommended to curtail this "political nightmare," and at a minimum to defend against it by trading your shares. You chose to go after the messenger instead. The problem is not my headlines, but the insularity and expectations -an unvbeliavble denseness - you bring to them. Get a name and get a life.
Joe what I am referring to is a PATTERN that shows, well, since you asked... but wait! I will simply not sink to your level of conversation.
Oh why, but why did I even post?
I was merely trying to point to the obvious, I was merely trying to help you mend fences with others. The ONLY reason why I posted is that I WAS TRYING TO HELP YOU. And what do I get after just a few exchanges? You want me to "get a name and get a life" resorting to insults and showing - once again, but I had to experience it myself I guess - your true colors.
I could tell you who I am, I don't really care. But my husband would. He is one of our country's best-known reporters, in fact allow me to immodestly say that his name is know all around the world. In any case, I had been discussing on and off this blog which I have been reading since its inception. I had saved archives of it and We just spent the last hour reviewing them. He agrees that there are DOZENS of examples of your problematic headlines and blatantly manipulative "information". His exact words: "This reeks of intellectual dishonesty. In my book this guy is no journalist."
I don't post much anywhere, I prefer to watch and think. I have NEVER criticized you. In fact, I was, UNTIL NOW, rather "on your side", but you have managed to antagonize me as well! You and your many personalities decidedly have a knack for doing this to your supporters. How sad.
I also see that Dadd, a very kind man if there ever was one, today wrote a long message on his site asking for an apology after your ridiculous and completely incorrect accusations against him. He simply asks for an apology. Mistakes happen, a reasonable and decent person would indeed apologize in a heartbeat. But I surmise that like the people at IHUB and like me he is probably not going to receive one from you.
I fully expect that you will delete this post. But it doesn't matter, I have now said everything there was to say. I shall no longer bother you, or try to help you.
My two cents.
Post a Comment