Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
There's a reason Nick Campanella wasn't convicted of any crime in that case. He didn't commit any crime. He wasn't even charged with a crime. As you well know.
James D. Tilton Jr. and James A. Tilton are not the same person.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/manage_msg.asp?message_id=173446035
The James A. Tilton associated with NSAV and the James D. Tilton Jr. associated with the litigation you mentioned are two different people. None of the companies mentioned in that litigation are NSAV.
That James Tilton that you mention is not associated with NSAV. Ours is James A. Tilton. The one in the litigation that you mention is James D. Tilton.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/NSAV/profile
Seems to me on the 20 or 30 times at this subject has come up, it is usually pointed out that not only was Nick not convicted of any wrongdoing, he wasn't even charged with anything. But if anyone has any court records to indicate otherwise I'm sure we will see them someday.
Any volume reported is trades. Trades are between buyers and sellers. Therefore all trades are both buys and sells, regardless of how the volume is classified.
There is buying every day. As long as there is volume, then there are equal numbers of shares bought and sold. All trades are both buys and sells. The confusion comes when the trade volume is classified as "buy volume" or "sell volume", commonly referred to as "buys" and "sells". It's an unfortunate choice of terminology that leads some to mistakenly think that on a given day more shares can be bought than sold, or sold than bought. Only shares that are traded count as volume. And trading requires a buyer and a seller. The classification of "buys" or "sells" just refers to where the trade price was in relation to the bid price and the ask price at the time of the trade. It can be useful as an indicator, but it can also lead to confusion.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/buying-and-selling-volume-1031027
As stated before, the 14C did not schedule a reverse split.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173172464
You mean this one?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169166500
karmakaziXpert
Thursday, June 16, 2022 11:59:33 AM
Post# 61138
Interesting trades today.
It doesn't work that way. If the company ever chooses to effectuate a reverse split the public would have at least two days warning prior to the proposed market effective date when the reverse would go into effect.
https://cooleypubco.com/2023/11/06/sec-approves-nasdaq-rule-reverse-splits/#:~:text=Listing%20Rule%205250(b)(,the%20proposed%20market%20effective%20date.
No problem. Yeah, it's the use of the term "Corporate Actions" that can lead to confusion. Corporate Actions can be understood to mean the Board acting to give itself the R/S option, or misunderstood to mean the Board effectuating an R/S.
No, the 14C does not schedule an R/S for 11/12/2023. The 14C gives the Board an R/S OPTION which becomes effective on that date. Once effective it will give the Board the option to effectuate a reverse split at any time at its discretion. So the Board could choose to effectuate a reverse split, or choose not to. The Board has given itself this option several times in the past, but as we know, that has never led to a reverse split actually being effectuated by SNPW.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=17000358&guid=Be5-kWrUh_JpJth
On page 2 the 14C refers to the "Corporate Actions" that the Board approved on October 13th, 2023:
The 14C gives the Board an R/S OPTION. Once effective it will give the Board the option to effectuate a reverse split at any time at its discretion. So the Board could choose to effectuate a reverse split, or choose not to.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=16987750&guid=DB5-kanF-syeJth
On page 2 the 14C refers to the "Corporate Actions" that the Board approved on October 13th, 2023:
The 14C gives the Board an R/S OPTION. Once effective it will give the Board the option to effectuate a reverse split at any time at its discretion. So the Board could choose to effectuate a reverse split, or chose not to.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=16987750&guid=DB5-kanF-syeJth
On page 2 the 14C refers to the "Corporate Actions" that the Board approved on October 13th, 2023:
Maybe they'll grant a plenary indulgence on the IHub Five Hundredth Year Jubilee?
So the venial sins have been forgiven. But the mortal sins have not. Thus the mortal sinners remain in Purgatory (banned) or Limbo (jailed) on a case-by-case basis. And of course the poor booted souls remain in Hell forever. Got it. Thanks.
Thank you.
Is it just me, or have the number of posts per day that free members can post recently increased?
It's like a plenary indulgence. Rejoice, ye naughty!
Are all the poor souls in IHub Purgatory who violated the old rules going to be transferred to IHub Limbo on Saturday?
But struggling to read tiny print is great brain exercise, isn't it? I mean, instead of lazily reading entire words at a glance, it forces us to get back to basics and read them one letter at a time. Fills up those retirement hours!
I'm using both Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome on a Surface Pro laptop. I'm ads free. Starting today unless I reduce the Zoom to 90% or lower my Favorites page is abridged. Normally at 100% Zoom or even 110% Zoom I could see the entire page. That includes the following columns: "Ticker", "Board Name", the number of unread posts, "Last Post", "Options", and the "More" column. But as of today if I zoom at 100% or more, the column titles bar disappears, and the only columns that remain are the board name and the number of unread posts. There is no left-right scroll bar, so there is no way to make anything else come into view. Interestingly this is not true on the various board pages. I can still see everything as usual, even if I zoom to 110%.
But it's good exercise trying to read at only 90% Zoom. Not only does it exercise my presbyopic eyes, it also exercises my neck and back as I lean forward closer to the screen. Of course at my age that can contribute to hunchback. Shall we call it IHunch? ;0)
Same here. Until today I was able to use the 110% Zoom size in Chrome and still see the full Favorites page. Now I have to reduce it to 90%. Otherwise only part of it is visible, and there is no scroll bar and no way to view the rest. This is only true for the Favorites page. I can still zoom to 110% on board pages without losing any part of the page.
Can't believe that I'm saying this, but I'm actually looking forward to it. My initial reaction to the proposed changes was trepidation. I mean, I've seen what can happen to a board when the posters collectively discover that the word "bullshit" does not violate the PG-13 rule. It was suddenly like a herd of cows on prunes. My Sister Benedict Mary side had to resist the urge to smack them down with a ruler. (She was my sadistic fifth grade nun, and the initial reason why I was attracted to the life of an IHub mod.) But the more I think about it, the new relaxed rules are going to be kind of like the Vatican 2 reforms of the 1960's. Sure, all hell broke loose, but at least with the Latin gone we finally knew what we'd been saying all those years. Of course in IHub' case it will be what we've not been saying. Somehow I think all this would have appealed to Sister BM's wicked side.
Hey, I have an idea. Something to go along with the more relaxed revised rules on members expressing their opinions of each other. How about creating a virtual shoot-out corral?! Maybe give the mods the ability to transfer all parties in an ongoing argument to the shoot-out corral with the understanding that only one of them will be able to come back? :0D
Ah, thanks, Shelly. Sounds then like the personal attack rules are going to be somewhat relaxed.
Thanks, Meghan. I'm thinking that maybe the proposed rule change language for Violation of Privacy could include something more specific along the lines of your language:
"Unless a poster outright says, “I am [insert name here]” publicly, their identity is to remain wholly understood as whatever their alias is on the boards."
Re: Proposed Rule Changes
I don't see personal attacks such as, "You're an idiot", or "You never know what you're talking about" covered under the proposed rules for either Personal Attack or Off Topic. Such attacks don't fall under the seven categories listed under Personal Attack "on the basis of:". The current language on posts that are about or that focus on others has been omitted. Perhaps deliberately?
Also I encounter a lot of posts which suggest or state outright that another member is secretly the CEO or a company insider. It's not clear to me if that would fit under either the proposed Violation of Privacy or Off Topic categories.
Thanks.
Lol. We'll take what we can get.
Lol. Same here.
I hope so too.
Thanks, Sterling.