jeffy

I did re-read you post. perhaps you should re-read mine.

I did not say I agree or understand why TA does not wish to comment on those specific questions.

I think we are both intelligent enough to know there is a power sturggle going on and TA can't be comfortable with his relationship with MP ... His removal from the board was orchestrated by MP and if I were in TA's shoes I would be ultra cautious in dealing with MP and in the things I say, how I say them, and to whom I say them.

Your most recent note says

Now i also have NEVER even 1x said

the note before which was a response to my note begins with you addressing me ... I took your final comment "With NO shares yourself I guess you don't really care about CSG SP though" - to also be addressed to me ... perhaps some grammatical ambiguity, but in re-reading I can see you could be referring to myself or TA.

I take it as TA now so pardon my sensitivities there are a lot of people who bash me and suggest I am full of negativsim because of my lack of support of MP's actions.

As for oldschoolminer ... I asked him which analyst (that is his word not some leak source) he got the information. An analyst would not speak to an outsider for info ... perhaps that analyst could shed light on the "inside leak".

As an old school investor I stand by being skeptical of a new poster who refers to a source but doesn't provide the info. For all any of us know it could be an analyst working at INTAC to which MP flapped his gums.

DD says you check into such things rather than accept them as being fact ... at least that's my style of DD.

As you suggested it is under the CEO's jurisdiction to provide press release information. Have you asked him why he is not providing such information which appears to be known or speculated upon by some members of the public.

I tried confirming the info and I reported to the BB word for word the response of TA ... I objectively let others decided whether that sheds a positive or negative light on the situation and make their own conclusions about TA's effectiveness in reporting to shareholder's. I did not attempt to paint it in either direction although I have an opinion about the quality of the answer.

IMO osm's posting was very articulate, far above the avg poster's ability in sentence structure, content and coherence (perhaps professionally written) ... what it lacked was verifiability, which for me results in getting filed very close to G.

orgy