Construction.
It's a simple word that conveys a transformation from one state to another, usually of a higher order.
I think I'm quite safe in assuming that if Mr Hodges hadn't made public his work on the Bivens suit, less than 25% of the people currently reading this wouldn't be here...because this time last years the majority of us believed this thing was over. Indeed, it hardly makes sense for a person who didn't believe payment was coming to hang out here, unless there's another reason...
Assuming this assumption valid, it follows that more than 75% of us are hanging on because we have some degree of expectation that something significant is coming to us. This expectation may be a flicker, or it may be a steady flame...but it is the commonality that binds us.
Mr Hodges has brought into his work Bob and six other similarly situated plaintiffs, pulled from the common pool of shareholders. They are closest to the action that Mr Hodges is working on, and are therefore in a position to have access to information that other shareholders do not.
Experience has taught us that Mr Hodges has believed we were close pretty much the entire time since the Bivens action went public...it has taught us there have been numerous unexpected barriers erected along the way as well.
The plaintiffs have been praised for their courage by Mr Hodges in several updates...courage is only necessary in the face of something that is not safe, routine, or ordinary.
Where is this going? Construction.
We're here because we believe Mr Hodges, even if just a little. We have plaintiffs who hear from Mr Hodges, and they relay information back to the shareholding community at large. They do so at some degree of personal risk.
So when I hear someone is digging up personal information of a plaintiff, I think stalker.
When I hear someone threatening a plaintiff or a plaintiff's family, I think of someone who is far less than a "represent(ing) only what (they) personally believe", and far more of someone who is either criminal, insane, or both.
Is it normal for a person who believes in a pending CMKX payment to stalk, threaten, or otherwise run down a fellow shareholder/plaintiff? Does the behavior subscribe to the principles of decency, fair conduct, and respect most CMKX boards seek to engender?
If not, why is this behavior tolerated? More importantly, why are the posters who exhibit these behaviors tolerated?
Were it my vote, I'd send such offenders back to the skunk boards from which they spawn. To me it's obvious it's not a fellow shareholder we're dealing with, but one of the elements Mr Hodges alluded to when praising plaintiff courage.
It goes back to construction....why would a person be here if they didn't believe Mr Hodges, unless they are mentally infirm or someone who seeks to benefit from a demoralized shareholder base?
Just thinking out loud-
C-Dub