With all due respect you are simply speculating that there is wrongdoing here. You have pieced together selected information that paints this dire picture that the insiders are conspiring to enrich themselves at the expense of retail shareholders. If you have proof of same please provide it. Otherwise I suggest you take up a career as a pulp fiction writer.

Although I believe like you that retail shareholders deserve whatever transparency is required by the SEC (and if there is anything amiss by those standards I am all ears!), I am more suspicious than ever of your motives and your ax to grind here. I don't think that you are in some way trying to manipulate the share price downward but that is the net effect of an almost constant stream of suspicion by you cast upon managment and their "real" motives, is it not? I think this has become VERY personal with you and you are determined even at the expense of your own investment and concurrently other longs to make some unattainable level of communication and forthrightness happen from management. Where have you been? The whole financial system is chock full of companies that are less than perfectly candid and perfectly timely in their communications.

You are also suggesting that some here are plants that are or are not "sponsored" by management or some mythical entity that has management's back in some way. As for your leading statement "Are they paid or supported by the company, or by others with vested interests in keeping Shareholders passive and weak; I have no idea. But whether "sponsored" or not, the result is the same"

Couldn't the same be said of you on the opposite side of this argument that any time there is decent movement with the stock price this former disgruntled shareholder rep and his cronies come on here and find a way to rain on the parade?