With all due respect, ddxz, I find your posts re AGS...

With all due respect, ddxz, I find your posts re AGS superficial. I mean AGS as a company, not just as a trading stock; meaning its whole history, the board and of course past decisions and performance. Surely these and the views of all shareholders, past and present, are important to anyone when assessing a company and its likely future direction. (less so when just trading numbers)

AGS is not a new shell. The money it has now it has from from the sale of its main asset that all shareholders once owned and supported. But it still has the same structure (minus one) as of old. Will history repeat, or will it rhyme? Past shareholders should not be bullied into silence. History should not (imo) be swept under the carpet. We should try to understand what happened in the past, and why, and whether it could happen again.