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.
OT: IVRT,
I'm sure that I'm not the only one who appreciates the efforts of the administrators to maintain the civility of the board.
regards
frog
OT: Miss Scarlet,
I have repeated the response re the pm.
I have additionaly tried an intuitively obvious alternative.
frog
OT: Miss Scarlet,
I did. I am honored. I responded.
The response did not bounce, so I assumed it made it through.
Let me know.
frog,
p.s. I am pleased to hear that you are better.
Miss Scarlet, You continue to grow in my estimation, I look forward to our infrequent chats. You should not doubt my sincerity, I am geniunely concerned.
It is not nor has it ever been my aim to make you question your investment. I wish for us all to obtain an accurate picture of what is actually going on with the company. That I choose to present my questions from the sceptical side of the equation is merely a reflection of my scientific training, nothing else.
I have little use for hype or misrepresentation. It is my contention that if the basic foundation that DNAP is building upon is sound in principal and practice, then there is no need for such antics.
best regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet, I am distressed to hear that you might not be well, I wish you a rapid recovery.
I think you missed the essence of my point regarding the lack of any challenge to positive posts of questionable merit. I am well aware that you understand the risks involved in the shared gamble here. What you do not seem to do is require any support to the quite often ludicrous claims put forward at times.
Take for example the current thread started by slopster in which he suggests that DNAP technology will quickly supplant standard DNA testing as the front line application in forensic testing. Any one here who is even marginally acquainted with the field knows that this is abject nonsense, and yet no one challenges it. In fact others who are the quickest to challenge a negative post, jump on the delusional bandwagon with both feet. Standard DNA testing is the finest level of identification known to mankind, it will never be supplanted by DNAP. DNAWitness will only be used in the second tier response when a standard test does not provide a match in the growing database. No matter how good it gets at providing a descriptive analysis, it will always be used AFTER the database search.
it is this one sided disregard for reality that I refer to when I suggest that positive posts are welcomed unchallenged.
In reference to your claim that I choose to establish my credibility in a certain way. I dispute that. Credibility is a quality that only has value when one wishes to sell an opinion or a used car. I have no opinions (or used cars) to offer. I only wish to engage in a dialog that will enable the participants to arrive at their own opinions and or conclusions. I am selling nothing, my personal credibility is irrelevant. The questions should stand on their own merit independent of motive or intention.
To hint that I am an agent of the devil seems to be a little out of line and I will chalk it up to your sense of humor and hopefully not your inclement condition.
I hope to hear that you are better very soon.
regards,
frog
jcryan, I agree to some extent that this board is different, it certainly tries to be a haven for those who do not wish to have their belief structure threatened. [i.e. Do not want to worry, as opposed to not worried.]
All inputs that enhance a positive outlook are welcomed unchallenged, even those of questionable veracity. Alternately any input or poster that is deemed negative is resisted regardless of the quality of the input.
You are correct when you suggest that there are a lot of reruns, I offer a couple of reasons. The vast majority of positive posts here are endless rehashes of previously reported information and due to the leanings of the membership are welcomed. The constant repetition of positive news is very comforting. The 'rerun' aspect of negative questions is also a consequence of board behaviour. Most negatively leaning questions are dismissed without being addressed. Typical responses call into question the motives of the poster without addressing the content of the post. It is inevitable that these unanswered questions return again and again.
Do not be concerned, tranquility will be the eventual outcome. One day the controversies will end and one way or another things will quiet down.
regards,
frog
LOL, So that's it!
You object to what I say not because you disagree with it, not because you think it is unethical, but because ...I'm a meanie.
Oh well. Life is hard.
If people need their facts sugar coated and fed to them in little bite size pieces then I can't help.
If they need to 'like' the bearer of news in order to consider it valid, then they are short changing themselves.
I do not regard as ethical behavior, any attempt to filter information in such a way as to make it 'comfortable'.
ming, It was a throw away line. It is not my intention to be drawn into an 'us vs. them' debate.
I object to having words put into my mouth. I am tired of being accused of intellectual hautiness, and I am tired of being cast as a member of some nefarious cabal.
I do NOT think that the members of this board are stupid. Although if there are any here that think that I am part of some organised movement, then I am afraid that they might qualify.
I do NOT think that the 'like minded longs' are delusional, although some of the arguments presented here sometimes lean in that direction. It is my experience that people are more inclined to believe things that benefit them and resist those things that might not. On the other hand, when they are presented with a rational evenhanded argument that explores all facets of an issue, they are quite capable of understanding the reality, even when it steps on their dreams.
Don't feel obligated to respond to this post, as we certainly wouldn't want to limit your evangelical mission by using up your daily allotment of posts.
regards,
frog
You'll have to clarify 'we'.
Ming, Stop trying to divert the subject, it is very difficult to follow.
This thread is NOT about 'eyecolor0', it is about 'stockpimpdaddy'. The thread started when retro asked if anyone knew who he was. Eyecolor0 is only mentioned as a reference.
It was your cut and paste from 'pimpdaddy' that I responded to. [As I suspect you well know.]Lets try to stay on track shall we?
ming, We can revisit it if you like, although I don't think it's a good idea. I was just trying to respond as quietly as I could to a request for info.
I wish you hadn't left off the best part of that post from the mystery man.
"..Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to continue posting, for the companys sake as well as mine. I just felt the company deserved a defense. "
I think that's telling, don't you?
Not able to continue...Why?
Because it's illegal, it's immoral it is highly unethical, and he doesn't want to end up next door to Martha in the pokey. Such blatant attempts to influence investor opinion by an officer of a corporation are "frowned upon" by the powers that be.
Shall we continue? Or should we just let it die down fade away?
I think it is NOT a good idea to keep revisiting it, nor is it a good idea to keep reposting snippets of the posts. I'm sure the good Doctor would concur, perhaps you should ask him?
best regards,
frog
retro,
He was Tony Frudakis.
per eyecolor0
mingwan0, I think I have found the reference in question. My apologies, as it is not a direct publication from the company.
In his excellent summary of the shareholders meeting worktoplay spoke directly with Dr. F and reported the following;
" In addition, if a larger company wished to purchase DNAP, the shares are now available to facillitate such a deal."
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAP&read=231500
regards,
frog
Mingwan0, No that's not it.
That newsletter (Jan 2003) is still on Cariocca's site. It does include the warrants plan but it does not include the reference to a friendly takeover.
The document I am refering to was, I believe, an e-mail to shareholders. Can someone with a better memory or a more complete archive assist here?
loch3, I don't have a copy any more but it was in the run-up to the share authorization vote. There was a long disertation by the Doctor that included reasons for the need for the additional shares.
The quote in question suggested that the additional shares would be needed in the event of an attempt to acquire another company or to facilitate the 'takeover by a friendly'. As it was mentioned as a potential application of the needed shares, it must have been a viable consideration at the time.
I'm sure that others have a reference. It was posted on Cariocca's excellent DD page for some time but I have been unable to locate it today. I'm sure others will provide a reference as it is a document with some notoriety, as it includes the promise for the warrants program that evaporated immediately after the authrization vote was successful.
regards,
frog
I'm not sure that's true.
****
"Dr. Tony has said in the past "no way" but any proposal might be looked at by CEO Gabriel as a quick way to profit."
****
Dr. T has mentioned in the past that a takeover by a 'friendly' was a viable option. There has evidently never been a suitable offer.
regards,
frog
Don't be so touchy. I said nothing about a grave injustice, I was merely responding to an observation by Miss Scarlet.
OT:Miss Scarlet,
It's an interesting disconnect isn't it?
Some posters are allowed certain leeway while others are not. Rest assured I am sure that I would not have taken umbrage at your response, whatever it might have been.
regards,
frog
p.s. I believe it was a response to me, as there is a deleted response in my mailbox.
cosmic,
I did not miss the discussion on telomeres, in fact I was an active participant.
Telomeres are tricky things. While they do get shorter each time a cell devides and eventually fail, they cannot yet be used to determine age.
This is because telomere length is adjustable, modified by the enzyme telomerase. A naturally occuring enzyme in the body. It is telomerase that causes telomeres to maintain their length in cancer cells thus allowing the cancer cells to become essentially immortal and reproducing in an unlimited fashion. Telomerase is essential in the growth phase of human development. Babies need to have the cells that they inherited from their parents to be renewed such that they don't carry the burden of their parents age with them.
Until the control function of telomerase is fully understood and it's application in different parts of the body, it will be very difficult to use telomere length as an indicator of age.
regards,
frog
mingwan0, Of course it's not a surprise. It's also not a surprise that you didn't answer the question but diverted it into a popularity contest.
You weren't asked to chose a side, you were asked a specific question regarding the PR.
Perhaps you could be a little more specific.
TIA
DougS, Let's ask those who read the PR whether the phrase is ambiguous.
Board members.
How many of you interpreted the PR phrase;
"...but the increased number of markers allow for more sensitive and accurate determinations of low levels of admixture (such as that which may have been contributed by a single great grandparent). "
to mean that the increase in capability of Ancestry 2.5 over Ancestry 2.0 was it's ability to now determine the contribution of a single great grandparent?
Knowing as we all do, the impartiality of this board and it's members. (and the relative esteem in which DougS and I are held by those board members). I am sure that we can obtain a fair and representative sample.
How about it?
DougS,
I suggest that you look up the meaning of 'ambiguity'.
If you can read that statement and suggest that it means that Ancestry 2.0 'could' also measure the contribution of a single grandparent, then I submit that it is the epitome of ambiguity.
Addendum,
Plus or minus one great grandparent = plus or minus one eighth.
One great grandparent = one eighth of heritage (12.5%)
mingwan0, Did you not take a math course in college?
Plus or minus one eighth "is" twenty five percent.
Here, I'll show you.
One eighth (1/8) = 12.5%
A range that includes a value with an accuracy of plus or minus 12.5% means that the value can be "plus" 12.5% or "minus" 12.5%. For a total range of 25%(12.5% + 12.5%).
Sorry if I jumped over that explanation. I assumed you would understand it. My Bad.
DougS, Get serious!
***
"..the increased number of markers allow for more sensitive and accurate determinations of low levels of admixture (such as that which may have been contributed by a single great grandparent). "
***
Do you mean to suggest that the previous version "could" detect such a contribution?
Or is this PR just nonsensical hype?
OT: Miss Scarlet. lol
I read once that one of the creation myths of the Australian Aborigines suggested that all of reality as we know it is merely the dream of a tree frog.
I liked the whimsy inherent in such a premise. And as one creation myth is as good as the next, I adopted it as my alias.
regards,
frog
mingwan0, I am only repeating the claims made in the latest PR. If they run counter to DNAP's previously published claims then I am not the one you need to take issue with.
The PR specifically points out the ability of the product to determine the contribution of a single great grandparent. (Something not previously possible.)
I don't know about you but I, and all of my associates, have a 'set' of eight great grandparents. Each of them contributing 12.5% of my ancestral heritage.
If previously released products could not determine the contribution of a 'single' great grandparent, then the 3% accuracy claim seems to be a little optimistic, don't you think?
regards,
frog
Ifida, Fair enough, it's an understandable mistake.
In light of recent events I have been reconsidering my stance on the hair color issue.
As you no doubt recall, my argument was based on the fact that although the underlying relationship of genetics to hair color was fairly obvious. (Just like eye color) There is however, an additional variable related to age, as anyone who has watched childrens hair change as they grow up will attest. Since we inherit our DNA from our parents at conception and pass along those same genes to our children and die with the same unchanged set we were born with, there is no way to determine age directly from the genome. Given this, I am sceptical of any claims that run counter to these facts.
However, the recent release of Ancestry 2.5 has forced me to rethink my objections. It appears that Ancestry can now (for an additional $60.00) get a much more accurate assay of your genomic heredity determining the individual contribution of a single great grandparent.
This is an eyeopener.
It means that the market for the previous version (Ancestry 2.0)willingly accepted heredity results that had an accuracy range of plus or minus one great grandparent. (plus or minus one eighth) or about 25% accurate.
Given these standards, I think it is highly likely that a hair color assessment with an accuracy rate of 25% would be accepted by the police departments around the country.
"The perpetrator has medium brown hair although it might be a blondish or perhaps very dark brown, but not light blonde or black. Does that help?"
What do you think?
regards,
frog
Ifida, you have me confused with someone else.
Since soon after Mendel first started the genetic revoluton with his plant studies, it has been common knowledge that such distinguishing characteristics as eye color are directly related to the genetic material we inherit from our parents.
It won't be long until all of the genes are mapped and identified. Why would you assume that that is not so, or that anyone would suggest otherwise. Do you not understand the relationship?
frog
mingwan0, Thanks that was it.
It appears that DNAP still has no idea what is on Kondragunta's confiscated computer and will not find out for at least a month. Furthermore Kondragunta gets to prereview all of the downloaded files and decide which ones he will allow DNAP to see and which ones he wants to keep confidential.
Only after that process is complete (March 8th) will DNAP be allowed to revisit the court with any objections to Kondragunta's review.
Unfortunately it looks like this is going to drag on for quite some time. I was hoping that the Tuesday's order marked the end of the turmoil.
regards,
frog
OT: Miss Scarlet,
I have always enjoyed our banter and also have appreciated your well mannered comments. I have never detected any ill will in your responses.
As to the lack of reverence that I enjoy here. Don't be concerned, it is not an issue. Reverence has never been my goal. (perhaps a little honest dialog once in awhile would be nice )
In regards to the perception of double talk that you mention. I think that if you were to revisit the posts in question you would revise your understanding. I have never suggested that a fact was not a fact unless it was contained in a PR.
I did once take issue with the nonsensical premise that a private response by the company to an individuals email was equivalent to a press release in the public dissemination of information from the company to the shareholders. I'm afraid that I still hold that viewpoint but I think you will agree that the two positions are not equivalent.
I have always enjoyed your contributions to the board, whether I agree with them or not.
Best regards,
frog
Gunnabe,
To some degree, I concur with your guess.
It certainly has the feel of orchestration.
The hair trigger response to yesterdays news seemed odd as well.
It was as if a number of investors were waiting for a specific event and when the 'news' hit they reacted immediately. Upon actually reading the release, the event just as quickly collapsed, but not before a few million shares had changed hands in less than 10 minutes. An equally viable PR today invoked no such reaction. Strange.
I am not sure I concur with your theory as to the motives, but it is certainly viable.
It would appear that things are percolating. Should be fun to watch.
regards,
frog
Cowboyd,
The fed kept rates low as expected, but prepared the ground for a rate hike in the forseeable future. This evidently confused the market and caused a sell off.
Gunnabe,
I apologise for being less than clear. My post was not intended to suggest that the PR's should not have been released.
I was trying to make the point that there have been very few releases from the company in the past few months. So few, that many here have commented on the lack of info coming from the company.
Given the fact that the two PR's released yesterday and today seem to indicate a marked change in the recent behavior of the company and since neither PR indicated a major and heretofore unknown event, could any another reason for the sudden change in information exchange be surmised.
Is this the start of some organised campaign? We have rarely seen one PR at a time <g> let alone two in a row. What's up?
regards,
frog
The very low level of information and PR's coming from the company lately has been commented on by many of the members here.
That we suddenly have two PR's back to back seems like a significant change in the behavior of the company. I am sure that there are many here who appreciate such largess.
Unfortunately both of the announcements made in the last couple of days have been for information already available and although it has been embellished significantly with new detail and commentary it has not added to the knowledge base of the investors.
I wonder what is the reason for the change of heart?
On another topic. Does anyone here have access to information regarding the Kondragunta litigation? It seems there was a development yesterday in regards to that saga.
The website I am familiar with has noted an order was issued in regard to that case yesterday. It notes the existence of the order but provides no details of the content of the order. Does anyone here know more about this?
Best regards,
frog
Doh! If 'Early' could post on RB you there would be no need to invent a new alias would there?
regards,
frog
"If you don't think too good, don't think too much." -Ted Williams
OT ming, It's holding shares in the present down turn that causes the stress. Any trader who was looking for a lower price would be happy.
Try to get the story straight. You get very confusing some times.
regards,
frog
OT: ming, thanks for the concern. No worries, you rank pretty low on my priority list. Just a healthy stress relieving excercise.
OT: oooh ...A mystery!
I love mysteries.
Let see, so far we have Biophan, or A Beckman Coulter competitor...Nah, too obvious.
It's probably someone who's really being beaten up in the marketplace as DNAP increases it's market share. I wonder who that could be?
We could start with all the markets in which DNAP is a major force.....No, let's not go there.
Hmmm...maybe it's someone like Perelgen who is using exactly the same approach to determine the underlying connections between the genome and drug response...Nah.. they already have 1.7 million snps identified and listed, it's doubtful that they are threatened by DNAP's 2500.
Maybe it's one of the drug giants...Lilly or Merke...Nah, if they had even a shiver of concern they could buy DNAP outright on the market for less than one days cafeteria budget.
Oh well... I give up. Who could it be?