Said before, more topics than merely the, I paraphrase, "SEC info is bad stuff" topic.

Curious, the thread noting "someone" saying Crystallex shares "no longer exist." Attributed to me for some reason, over "revoked" comments made. PM Rumor mill, once again.

Time to set the record straight on this "revoked" term.

I do not use Crystallex being "revoked," to mean shareholder rights are gone.
I do not use Crystallex being "revoked," to mean shares no longer exist.
I use revoked to mean Crystallex shares are illiquid.
Revoked could also mean loss of shareholder rights. Seems valid.
Although, cannot find links to verify. Maybe someone else can to do so.
regardless, "SH rights are gone" and "no longer exist" are not my intended definition for revoked.

So, to make myself absolutely clear, I use Crystallex revoked to mean illiquid, even if the words that happen to be used might be "cancelled," or "worthless," or "trash," or "junk," etc., etc. Not sure about ever using the "no longer exist" term..., but that. too.
Crystallex revoked, even when using other terms, means illiquid to me.

Perpetuating this twisted word game serves no one.