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.
bartermainia....thanks.
Mizzou7 has accused me of being Anna, Robert, Bruce, the
tooth fairy, plus many others.
He has been 100% wrong on my identy, just as he has been
100% wrong on everything else he has posted.
John
FWIW: "jking83378" is not Bruce Kamm IMSO. Back more than 2 years ago (on the BLYC board on RB) ...when I was just beginning to learn about and understand that pennystocks could be severely shorted and naked shorted...I believe a person by this same ID and name began helping me with my studies of this subject...ie. "jking83378". At the time, he knew more than I did about this very destructive practice. He posted many very good articles on this this subject: shorting/naked shorting...which he specifically, said were for me...my file. At the same time, Bruce Kamm had just recently become CEO of BLYC. I communicated many times with Bruce...especially, via his old Bentley Commerce message board (on the co.'s website)...and as far as I could tell...Bruce did not understand that pennystocks could be shorted nor did he understand anything about naked short selling. So since, the differences in these 2 individual posters postings were so different in both wording/phrasing/tone and shorting knowledge...I am reasonably certain/convinced that they are not the same person. FWIW...once again, good hear from you John!
As for Bruce: I hope you folks get some things accomplished and done right and well this time around. I'm older and wiser, I hope you folks are too.
We'll see.
29 boardmarks now...interest is improving. Since, I've been involved with this board...the highest # I've ever seen previously (I believe) was 27.
Getting to .0020 cents (and rather quickly) was almost a given IMO from the PR. IMO, .0040 cents is the next possible resistance level. On the way down, it traded around this level for a while. Then perhaps, the it will have resistance at the 0070-.0075 cent level. After that, it's a question of whether or not this stock goes through .01 cent (?). We'll see. Strong and steady move up currently. Looks quite strong. I like it natch.
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:40 AM
To: Bruce Kamm
Subject: Re: case?
Mr. Kamm, is that you accumulating all these BLYC shares? Or is there
a big PR about to come out with great news?
Something is up......
Bruce Kamm wrote:
I am not accumulating shares, so it must be investors that have a renewed
interest in BLYC.
Gotta be a big PR coming
f1fans......ACCUMULATION!!!!!!!!!
I'm sure I speak for many, that we are tired of the same old complaining or defense of Bruce and BLYC management. I agree that we should be skeptical of a failed BLYC business plan and those that brought it to us. I also agree that we have not heard the whole story and may never. I have my own theories, but that is the past. Let's hear about the present or estimates of the future.
At this point the chips are starting to accumulate on the table. Let it ride!
jking83378, and I have stated that your post are self proclaimed nonsense!!!
Your egotism reminds me of a partially educated, lacking of common sense... individual!!!
To hold shareholders responsible for managements lack of ability is totally contrary to common sense.
get out of town...good question because someone is accumulating and why is yet to come..IMO
JKing:
I disagree. There was plenty of time to see whether the software would catch on and whether it would generate revenue. BLYC stopped posting how many total sites were using the software; mainly because no new sites were being added and, in fact, the total was dropping. Revenues were pathetic. Expenditures were unexplainable.
It's was good riddance.
My questions are still unanswered.
I agree. I don't know why everyone is coming down on Bruce. He didn't asked to be terminated.
I'll repost what Bruce replied back to me a couple months ago.
>> Bruce Kamm wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>>> >>> Not with my company...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The company's new COO (Anna Taylor) had nothing better to do and decided
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>> >> all
>> >>
>> >>
>>> >>> on her own that the company shouldn't be in the barter business. She
then
>>> >>> took her misguided beliefs as fact and used them to terminate my
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>> >> contracts.
>> >>
>> >>
>>> >>> Fact is, after she was incapable of filing the company's 10K and then
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>> >> unable
>> >>
>> >>
>>> >>> to pay herself, she quit about 6 weeks after becoming CEO. She now owns
a
>>> >>> dress shop in Sarasota FL.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You are correct... I pioneered online barter and developed TradeBanc the
>>> >>> first online ecommerce enabled exchange marketplace and clearinghouse in
>>> >>> 1999. I then developed VirtualBarter in 2000, which at the time was
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>> >> branded
>> >>
>> >>
>>> >>> UNITE, then version 2 was branded Crump Barter and then version 3 was
>>> >>> branded Bentley Commerce. Software details can be found at the new
>>> >>>
> > website
> >
>>> >>> under development at www.virtualbarter.net.
From what Bruce says, it was all Anna that made the bad decisions.
I posted a statement from Bruce, you can decide if truth or not.
get_out_of-town.....per your post
It's all moot. Bruce's software and business plan failed.
Sorry..his business plan failed because it was not given the
requist 2 to 3 years a new start up needs to succeed.
Anna and Robert cut the heart out of the plan by prematurely
FIRING Bruce. They were succeeding and moving ahead but
the impatience of a specific few emboldened Anna and Robert
to act irresponsibily.
John
It's all moot. Bruce's software and business plan failed. His software is not needed. Anna is gone. Bruce is back but not CEO. This is as good as it gets for now.
The questions are:
1) Is BLYC buying up shares? If so, why?
2) Who is buying up shares?
3) Does this have anything to do with the settlement?
Anything you say Bruce...
just keep going,,,, just keep going,,sung by dora on finding nemo LOL
mizzou7....I have posted many times
that you have zero experience in what it takes to start and
run a business.
Your quote "Bruce Kamm had a responsibility to the shareholders..."
Bruce did exercise he responsibility to the shareholders
1. Anna was a power hungry individual, with absolutely NO
experience in business and specifcally in the BARTER
business.
2. Robert was a weak/follower of an individual. Anna exploited
him to her advantage.
Neither Anna or Robert had a clue about the barter business
or learned how to operate the Software.
Leaving the software would have been disaster because Anna
and Robert couldn't run it, manage it, and maintain it and
would have basically destroyed the software.
Taking the software was IMO exercising his shareholder
responsibilty.
Anna and Robert had the responsibility to the shareholers and
recklessly disregarded that responsibilty for their own
personal power grab when they terminated Bruce.
Their power grab decisions were devoid of any logic as to how
the business would continue, and the repercussions that could/
would follow. They made a hasty, selfish, improper
decision to terminate Bruce
We saw their ineptitude as the business failed the moment
Bruce left. They should have considered all possibilities
before their hasty/reckless actions.
Anna and Robert had the power to FIRE Bruce.
Bruce had the power to take his software,contracturally.
I have no insider information, only experience in years in
business and legal stuff.
Why do you think they settled ???? Gut level...BLYC was wrong,
in what they did to Bruce...and Bruce's suit against BLYC
was valid, so BLYC capitulated.
BLYC settled and brought Bruce back, probably with more power
and effective control.
Stop blaming Bruce
John
One additional person that has to share culpability in this
fiacso is you MIZZOU7
you're welcome
Thank you for offering
Nope. You're doing just fine. I'm quite sure just about everyone will agree with this.
We'll see how the current arrangement works out.
Thanks for the post and for becoming an assistant.
I didn't do anything wrong did I?
Not me. Good question. eom.
Yeah, I removed 2 posts for vulgarity in the 14 to 15 months I was moderator. You've removed 1 already. I'm not saying what you did was wrong today...I'm just saying it was not necessary IMO to mention my removing posts. And it would've been very easy to say that only 2 were removed since, I even became a member with iHub. FWIW.
Oh well, I will be watching you as well.
Look at the context of what occurred here this weekend...ie. yesterday. As I asked you in a private email (earlier today when I saw I was no longer the mod.)...when did you ask MATT to put you in as moderator here?
Also, in your question to me about this board...you asked to assist since, you assumed I was going to leave. You did not ask me if, I wanted to assist...and you never have.
I asked you late Friday/early Saturday whether you'd like to assist on this board...because, I was deciding to stay...make more changes and bring z_deville in to assist...if, this individual would accept...this quickly became the case.
You see...things did change.
Currently I am not happy about the what has occurred here.
You assisting would provide balance...but, my being removed as mod. after I brought in z_deville seems rather cheap and unfair. I have asked MATT to reverse this. I will wait and watch to see what changes...if, anything.
As I've said and asked 2x already: WHEN DID YOU ASK MATT TO MAKE YOU THE MODERATOR FOR THIS BOARD?
Thanks.
ps. Ok...so, I see I'm assisting now. This may work.
We'll see.
ps2.Regarding removed posts: I certainly blocked a couple posted by kkdg more than a year ago...but, remember mizzou7 had this ability to block a post as well. I'm quite certain it's been a long long time since I've done such a thing. Normally I confront a post with one of my own. I believe the ones from kkdg were on the vulgar side as I recall.
Barter,
I asked you to make me an assistant so I could see what posts were deleted. I know there's not many but have noticed a couple here and there. When you said "I may put you in" I decided to take you up on the original offer instead. I didn't know a "window" applied to this post. Since you pretty much built this board I did extend the courtesy of making you an assistant.
There's been alot of people lately letting out frustrations and voicing opinions here and it is understandable. This is a stock that suddenly went from hopeful to those holding it to dead in 1 PR. Now that something is happening again people are paying attention once more.
I really don't plan on deleting anything or interfering, I just want to make sure all sides are heard. Only things I would ever delete are personal attacks, threats and spam (mizz, please don't spam other POS's here, I did delete that one as my first act).
Mizzou
We should thank Anna for all the "strategic alliances" she developed during her tenure as CEO of Bentley.
Maybe now that she is selling women's clothing, she can sell Robert a pair of panties.
Zach
When Bruce officially took over running the co (around Feb. 2004) the shares O/S were probably in the 400 million share range.
One of the first pr's that was made around that time was about a corporate barter transaction for the building (building materials...a certain amount of them) of a Dominican Republic resort. Which was supposed to generate a decent profit for someone...when the resort was built and the deal completed.
Many changes occurred when Bruce was there. Crump was removed. Gordon Lee stopped speaking for the co. and stopped receiving shares.
There were lots of interesting pr's...not much follow through and I don't know why. But, I do know that the basher interest in this stock has been very high in my 3 plus years with this co.
Bruce Kamm never paid himself anything close to what Gordon Lee did when he ran the show. And for most of Bruce's previous stint Gordon Lee owned a very large and somewhat controlling interest (share count in this stock).
Whatever the case may be...this is a pinksheet stock now. No SEC reports are required. The co. saves money. US stocks are manipulated from Wall St. as they always have been. This is the true SCAM. Wall St. and the Fed. are the true scam/scammers. Anyone who doesn't believe me on this, just check my iHub board which is linked at the bottom of all of my posts.
I don't know about his virtual barter system having a loss $500,000 or not. And I never understood why it cost so much to run this co. Being on the pinks...even though VBarter is still up (though in a very small way) has proven that this co. can be run much more cheaply.
I'm watching Kamm's Intertade biz. If, they are focussing on corporate barter...well, though these things take much more time to complete...maybe they will land something substantial. Who knows?
Are you short or long BLYC now Shorter King?
Mizzou, Here is a fact:
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/050914/095323.html
Press Release Source: Bentley Commerce Corporation
Bentley Commerce Corporation Terminates CEO and CFO Bruce Kamm, and Appoints Anna Taylor Interim CEO and CFO
Wednesday September 14, 2005 12:56 pm ET
SARASOTA, FL--(MARKET WIRE)--Sep 14, 2005 -- The Board of Directors of Bentley Commerce Corporation (OTC BB:BLYC.OB - News) today terminated Bruce Kamm from his position as the Company's CEO and CFO. The Board has appointed Anna Taylor, Bentley Commerce's Executive Vice President and COO, its interim CEO and interim CFO. Robert Schumacher continues as its President and Chief Information Officer.
ADVERTISEMENT
"We are moving Bentley Commerce forward with a number of business initiatives," Ms. Taylor said. "We fully intend to strengthen and add to Bentley Commerce's business and develop key strategic alliances."
Bentley Commerce Corporation:
Bentley Commerce Corporation is an ecommerce business-to-business services provider that has established a collaborative online barter marketplace. The Company offers alternative payment methods including trade, as well as management services and systems to small and mid-size companies.
Forward-Looking Statements:
With the exception of historical information, this news release and accompanying information may include forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated as a result of various risks. There are numerous factors that could contribute to such differences, therefore such projected events and anticipated results are not warranties or guaranties that such events will occur or that the Company will achieve such results. For more information about this corporation and risks involved in the investment of their publicly traded shares, please see the company's website(s), and/or documents filed with the SEC, which are easily accessible in the EDGAR database system.
Contact:
Contact:
Bentley Commerce Corporation
Bob Schumacher
310-201-0800
Email Contact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bentley Commerce Corporation
But Bruce did control the release of shares to the market. The 600 or so million shares he released to the market I should say.
His virtual barter system was in place for 1 1/2 years and failed to make any signifigant revenue. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe in the last 10Q filed by bruce before his departure, BLYC and his virtual barter system had a loss of somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000 or $600,000 which I also believe to be about the same or more than what BLYC was losing BEFORE Bruce and his virtual barter.
Mizzou
I am happy to see you understand it took the actions of all 3 officers to effect the result. I argue Robert and Anna were the main culprits.
That is the point I was trying to make.
So, I suggest, if you are not comfortable, then go ahead and run like _________.
I'd rather stay and fight it out. Plus, I like it when my restricted shares (form 144 shares) increases in value...rather than declining in value, for nearly 2 straight years.
This a publicly traded and manipulated company/stock. Bruce does not control what happens to this stock after it is registered with the DTCC/FED BANK. The Fed banking system is a fractional reserve system. $1 in reserve with the Fed Bank can be leveraged perhaps 10x...ie. member Banks can loan 9x or 10x the amount of US$ they have in reserve at the Fed Bank (thus, creating 9x-10x more $'s out of nothin'...ie. their check book money power and scam). The Fed Bank through the DTCC control the US stock markets. I believe they use their fractional reserve banking system in stocks as well. So, stocks look like they can be leveraged up or down to a 9x-10x shares outstanding ratio. Or in other words, stocks like the US$ can be watered-down/diluted/and manipulated by those who are running the system. Bruce does not run the system. The Fed Bank completely controls the US's monetary system...it prints money/creates Fed debt notes and sells them to the people at face value. Why would they be any different or any nicer with our stocks, which they claim they own (plus us and all our assets)...via their legal and conspired bankruptcy of the US in 1933.
WAKE UP GOOD PEOPLE!
You are showing me "NO facts only attempts to justify Bruce Kamm's actions...
I will agree with you on one thing... they all played a part... and two of the three are still managing this company!!!
That tells me: RUN LIKE *ELL!!!
Good luck to you Mizzou
See you later. Good luck with the other stock you spammed here.
Zach
Mizzou
Get a clue. Yes, Bruce was CEO. Robert and Anna were officers and the three comprised the BOD.
Each of the three have a vote as BOD members.
What looks like happened is Robert and Anna voted to TERMINATE/FIRE Bruce. Two votes to one, Bruce is done. Anna's apparent power play. Robert must have no balls. That is still a concern to me.
How is that Bruce's fault? He did not quit, he apparently was forced out!
Where is the fidicuary responsibility on the part of Robert and Anna to the shareholders?
I also am the sole proprietor of a small business. Whether in my public sector or small business capacity, I do not and will not stand by while others attempt to stick it in my fanny.
Does any of this make any sense to you, or do you just refuse to look at facts?
Zach
I think I made my point here!!! GL2A with this position... you will need it!!!
Thank God!!!
Brauce Kamm was the CEO (That stands for Chief Excutive Officer)... He is the BOTTOM LINE!!! He wanted and accepted the job and must take the responsiblity for all of the money shareholders lost because of his inabilities.
By the way
I work as a manager/supervisor in the public sector. I am not a CEO.
Mizzou
Are you blind? Where is Anna's responsibility in all this?
I told you, I am not saying what Bruce did was righteous but what happened and the results of such are not the sole responsibility of Bruce Kamm.
There were three on the BOD. Anna and Robert apparently gave Bruce the boot.
Why in your mind is this all Bruce's fault?
Zach
It appears quite obvious to me, that BLYC was heavily shorted as well during most of Bruce's prior CEO stint.
Watch and follow a stock's pps trend very closely. Wall St. is non-transparent (and essentially non-accountable)...so, only the company heads and THE STREET INSIDERS/THE DTCC/AND THE MM'S know what is the truth or a close approximation to it.
ps. AUDIT WALL ST. AND THE DTCC/FED. BANK...IF, IT COULD EVER BE DONE (IT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET IN GENERATIONS) AND ONE WOULD PROBABLY UNCOVER A NIGHTMARE SCAM OF EPIC HISTORY SHATTERING AND UNBELIEVABLE PROPORTIONS!!!
Bruce Kamm had a responsibility to the shareholders... hopefully you are not a CEO... If so, please post the company you manage so people can sell their position before you pull a stunt like Bruce Kamm did...
Stop defending that worm!!! you know it was wrong and not the way to handle the situation!!! A lot of shareholders paid the price for his behavior.
Guess it's OK when you you have shares at .0003 / 001... but the longs owned millions of shares between .03 .06... his actions were not justified to sacrifice the shareholders...
All potential investors need to know just how this company is ran and what kind of people are involved!!!
Don't defend him because you can't... I've been around along time with this company and have seen it all!!!
Mizzou
Bruce did use the court system. Where have you been? Bruce filed suit over this very issue and the matter was apparently resolved out of court.
Do you think maybe Robert realized Bruce's value to Bentley? After all, if what Robert and Anna did was so righteous why not continue the fight and attempt to prove their case in court? I don't know, maybe Anna has big cans and Robert was mesmorized by them. It is clear as day to me Anna was the root casue of all the nonsense that occurred. The history bears this out.
You and I and a third person are in business together. You have a software package you developed and licensed to the business. The third person and I fire you. You mean to tell me you would continue to allow myself and the third person to continue to use your software and not pay you?
Please do yourself a favor and do not ever go into business.
Zach
Well, for one thing...IMO, BSWB should not the moderator here and now. There was a window of opportunity for this to occur last week. But, as of yesterday...when I brought z_deville in to assist...took out mizzou7 and asked BSWB if, he'd like to assist on the board (after he asked me if, I was leaving...and if so could he assist on the board)...the window of opportunity to mod. here had obviously changed.
MATT...I suggest and recommend that you make BSWB an assistant here (as I would have done if, he had replied to my message) and that I be put back in as the mod.
This seems to be the fair and right solution to what I see as a problem here and now.
I would not have sacrificed the many shareholders and their money... YET HE DID!!! He's out for himself and only himself... He has proven that over and over...
You made a statement that we have have a legal system!!! that's what Bruce Kamm should have used... plus, it would have made him look much better in a court room.
Followers
|
15
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
1090
|
Created
|
02/17/04
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |