+1

Very Poor and Biased NXO Article---Skewed To the Downside

nebulous 2 years ago • updated by Keubiko 2 years ago 1

This is a sincere and stern warning to those who have put out the article stating that NXO skewed to the downside! I will say this very clearly and you guys have to be very careful because what you have written puts you on the verge of legal slander. I have read your article and it is poorly written. The fact about Larry was inaccurate and as to my recollection the article failed to mention both Stephan Petranak's and Ruda Cardinals involvement with the company both of who are actually integral to the credibility and clout of what it has to offer. Your article while expressing that the author felt that there has been more than enough value built into the existing share value based on the calculations which were being used is fine by me as that is simply your opinion. Nevertheless, your conclusion stating that the value is skewed to the downside while still your opinion failed to mention as to my recollection the potential contracts that can be obtained as well as their dollar amounts, which by the way is key to what I am trying to say here--nobody knows this as things are organic and to conclude because things are skewed to the downside that the stock is fit to be shorted--again that is only in your opinion and you have no idea what the future value of the company will despite what you have calculated in the present. The big problem with your first article is that you guys did not qualify it--and that is what has made me really displeased and will openly say you guys have written a very poor and very biased article. How hard would it have been to say something like "while we believe the present value in nxo's share price is excessive and not worth as to what we believe it should be, it is therefore we have estimated that the company's share price will be skewed to the downside moving forward But this is by no means to say that we can predict actual share value and we are not recommending for people to short the stock even though we are doing so because we believe the stock will go down. It is up to you to do your own due diligence and decide for yourselves." The way you had written the article is from my perspective more or less telling people to short the stock--PERIOD and as I say very sloppy and hinging on slander as you did not give enough accurate and correct information and you are talking in absolute terms without doing what is really expected for a fair and impartial piece of writing which is to give your position and state it is simply just that. In any case, after that first article I didn't bother to read today's which again shorters who either believe implicitly or otherwise that the company is a "scam" used your articles as fuel for their argument--so in essence, you are in bed with those who don't have a clue in what they are talking about and who haven't taken the proper time and energy to do more thorough research. In any case, there are a lot of angry shareholders who see differently, and no doubt I am among one of them. Like I said, I am giving you this sincere and stern warning to consider rewriting your articles and being more objective. If not, trust me there are people who will challenge your articles and you may face legal actions because from my perspective and those who agree this is slander and you guys should know way better!

Please use paragraphs. Your post hurts to read.