Retired
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.
Unquestionably. But when the conclusion is presented as fact ..... Just sayin'.
We all shareholders will soon rips the rewards of efforts of DBMM when it goes OTC*PINK and gets in growth mode.
Link to “salty” musings, please.
Hmmmm. Don’t recall saying they do.
If that is "all that matters', then why are we sitting here waiting for the judge to decide if that's "all that matters"? Just sayin'.
Ah! The old 'baffle 'em with bullshit' gambit. 116 pages should add another couple of months to the decision. IMO, of course.
'Trap' is definitely the definitive word. I found myself trapped after buying in at $2.00+ per share way back when. At that time, the kool-aid had taste and the "I'm jazzed" conference calls were convincing. Now, well, nothing all that convincing after 1/100,000 in r/s's. If this thing survives in spite of all the broken promises, tardy reporting, shylocks, SEC intervention and years of red ink, there WILL be some home runs hit but, IMO, they'll be short-lived and few and far between.
Thanks for the kind words, Jet.
It’s been over a decade for some. Patience is a dish served cold with dbmm. IMO, of course.
IMO, staying positive is just about all they can do at this point. They made their case and now just have to wait with the rest of us as to the outcome. Is the fact that it seems to be taking forever a good sign or maybe not so good?
In what fashion has the Judge been “working with” the company?
That was NOT the intended point. lol. One doesn't give that cop a ration of shit nor do you do likewise with the SEC. You 'yes' them to death and do what you have to do to make things right IF you wish to make your case. Pissing off either the cop or the SEC isn't a good idea. N'est pas? Now, the argument will undoubtedly be that dbmm did produce what was asked -- nay, DEMANDED of them but not without a lot of kicking, screaming and crying. In the end, all dbmm is is just another piss ant pink/gray that hasn't made a dime in over a decade. They have earned no special dispensation and have done precious little to garner same. All IMO.
Just sayin'.
Calling out the SEC is about as smart as giving a cop that just pulled you over a ration of crap. It ain't gonna help your case.
With ARYC, 'ambiguity' seems to be the word for the day.
"17th Century" lmao. Been thru this 7000 times. Fresh material, please.
Love the “shorts” argument. Makes no sense, but we all have our windmills.
A healthy outlook shared by many, IMO.
Actually, were you to begin with Post 166231 and follow that thread, the 'topic' was germane. Really.
Wasn’t that wonderful of them? What special do-bees! Unfortunately, their “update” doesn’t equate to a judge’s sanction.
IR nowhere to be found. Looks more and more like hospice to be called in.
Must be expensive! Pro bono?
Actually, a pissing contest is precisely what dbmm’s been all about for over a decade. Why stop now? IMO, of course.
Might any of the counsel noted ever used falsehoods to win a case or is that just the SEC lawyers that are prone in that direction?
That's quite the reach there.
What might be her motive for lying?
Specifically, which 'lies' are you referring to?
IF — and this is a huge if — they manage to dodge this bullet, you can bet their leash will be a short one and one without the possibility of r/s approval. Just spit-balling here.
I guess it depends solely on what one wants to see in all of that. What strikes me is the total irritation with dbmm and their arrogance and defiance in the face of revocation. Seems as if their latest “the best defense is a strong offense” stance has some people a trifle irked. IMO, of course. Just sayin’.
Chances are excellent the the "3+Million-Investment" by the secretive "Wealthy Family" group has been eaten up by now. All the judge has to do at this point is let this thing wither and die on the vine. IMO, of course.
It's all very monotonous, isn't it? Nowhere near as bad as when they went dark for two years, though. Now, they're "current" and still have nothing to say that investors wish to hear. Just hyperbole.
I fully understand your reluctance to grasp the information provided at face value - that's only human nature. However, to infer that it could be a hoax predicated on the lack of employees at the time doesn't really hold water. A genuine 'Sting' would have included a battery of workers for everyone to see. IMO, of course.
Lest we forget:
Sales: 3 Months Ending 2/28/18: $180,760
" 3 " " 2/28/19: $118,057
Sales: 6 Months Ending 2/28/18: $326,969
" 6 " " 2/28/19: $240,702
Net Loss: 3 Months Ending 2/28/18: $ 71,365
" " 3 " " 2/28/19: $171,475
Net Loss: 6 Months Ending 2/28/19: $129,711
" " 6 " " 2/28/19: $252,271
Per unaudited, early filled(sic) 10k
Perhaps IR can assist further. Give the nice lady a call.
Seems to me the Judge knows something u don't.
Is there anyone naive enough to believe that our gypsies were just being good little do-bees and decided to file early? Is there anyone naive enough to believe that being on the cusp of the judge's decision, pro or con, didn't weigh heavily in their rush to file? Without looking, I would be willing to bet they NEVER filed early before this august occasion. Insofar as the highly contentious 'mitigating circumstances', hell, that could be referencing their bout with the loan shark and ensuing forced interface with the SEC. It could be a reference to the government shutdown which extended closure. It could be a reference to the not inconsiderable legal costs just to stay in business. It might even mean they ran out of toilet paper and had to go to Costco for a case and their CC bounced. Just seems as if there's always something -- always something -- that keeps them from achieving the lofty goals set way back in the "17th century".
All IMO, of course.
Hurt what, when, who?
But ... but ... No update necessary as resolution is in the company's favor is "guaranteed".
Just illustrating absurdity with absurdity. Rock on.
The judge's mere presence kept them semi-honest. Mitigating circumstances? LOL. Back to the 'Calamity Jane' defense .... or was it the 'Titanic' defense? The long and short of everything is that they produced their own 'mitigating circumstances'. We didn't do it -- the SEC didn't do it -- the judge didn't do it -- their '16 employees' didn't do it -- THEY, King Reggie and Lady Linda, did it.