Thanks for the update, gater.

Very perceptive, Mr. Sixpack. The mistake of the critics is not that they criticise the world, it is that they never critisise themselves. They compare the alien with the ideal; but they do not at the same time compare themselves with the ideal; rather they identify themselves with the ideal.

The pessimists who attack the Universe are always under this disadvantage. They have an exhilirating consciousness that they could make the sun and moon better; but they also have the depressing consciousness that they could not make the sun and moon at all.

A good critic should be like God in the great saying of a Scottish mystic. George MacDonald said that God was easy to please and hard to satisfy. Good critisism combines the subtle pleasure in a thing being done well with the simple pleasure in it being done at all.

Those that are cheering for Cassavant have it right precisely because they believe that he is trying to satisfy the shareholders, which, I submit, is a mite harder than trying to please the critics.

It is assumed that the sceptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of scepticism. It used to be on this board that half a loaf was better than no bread, and now we have those that would tell us that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf.

GLTY

LOL Holdno. Experts are undoubtedly right nine times out of ten, but the tenth time comes, and we find in military matters an Oliver Cromwell who will make every mistake known to strategy and yet win all his battles, and in medical matters a Robert Browning whose views have not a technical leg to stand on and are entirely correct. Time will tell.

GLTY

You are right, it is the key, but noone on this board has the means to determine the answer. As far as drinking goes, Cherton said that the sound rule in the matter would appear to be like many other sound rules--a paradox. Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable. Never drink when you are wretched without it, or you will be like the grey-faced gin-drinker in the slum; but drink when you would be happy without it, and you will be like the laughing peasant of Italy. Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death and hell. But drink because you do not need it, for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world.

GLTY

Not because we don't care, it is just that we are in the same boat you are, which is to say that we don't know either.

GLTY

Looks like her reply to you will reveal a hint of "group think" LOL

What??

You act like this groupthink (to use your term) is unique to CMKX?...

I've followed dozens of stocks where the same thing happened. This, like PCBM, is one of the more extreme cases.

No idea why you're unable to understand why some people enjoy researching questionable companies. God knows there are plenty of us, or haven't you noticed?

Nice work, Pedro.

Thanks Dwiz. EOM

Thanks! eom

Thanks for your insight, but those without years in the business will probably want to play it safe:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/110802.asp

The Important Dates of a Dividend
There are four major dates in the process of a company paying dividends:

Declaration date – This is the date on which the board of directors announces to shareholders and the market as a whole that the company will pay a dividend.

Ex-date or Ex-dividend date – On (or after) this date the security trades without its dividend. If you buy a dividend paying stock one day before the ex-dividend you will still get the dividend, but if you buy on the ex-dividend date, you won't get the dividend. Conversely, if you want to sell a stock and still receive a dividend that has been declared you need to sell on (or after) the ex-dividend day. The ex-date is the second business day before the date of record.

Date of record – This is the date on which the company looks at its records to see who the shareholders of the company are. An investor must be listed as a "holder of record" to ensure the right of a dividend payout.

Date of payment (payable date) – This is the date the company mails out the dividend to the holder of record. This date is generally a week or more after the date of record so that the company has sufficient time to ensure that it accurately pays all those who are entitled.

Why All These Dates?
Ex-dividend dates are used to make sure dividend checks go to the right people. In today's market, settlement of stocks is a T+3 process, which means that when you buy a stock, it takes three days from the transaction date (T) for the change to be entered into the company's record books. As mentioned, if you are not in the company's record books on the date of record, you won't receive the dividend payment. To ensure that you are in the record books, you need to buy the stock at least three days before the date of record, which also happens to be the day before the ex-dividend date.




As you can see by the diagram above, if you buy on the ex-dividend date (Tuesday), which is only two days before the date of record, you will not receive the dividend because your name will not appear in the company's record books until Friday. If you want to buy the stock and receive the dividend, you need to buy it on Monday. (When the stock is trading with the dividend the term "cum dividend" is used). But, if you want to sell the stock and still receive the dividend, you need to sell on or after Tuesday the 6th.

*Note: Different rules apply if the dividend is 25% or greater of the value of the security. For details see the NASD notice (PDF file) explaining dividend issues.

Gump, seems to me they are setting up the pieces for a merge of some sort, but agree with your sentiment about wanting to know the end game. I keep clinging to the Roger Glenn theory (helping set something up that will get this thing out of the basement -- which IMHO will require whacking the MMs).

Here is a link to everything you wanted to know about mergers (and some things you did not want to know). Not intended for you per se, I believe you have a handle on most of that already and don't need a tuturiol, just throwing it out for the curious.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/mergers/default.asp

So we are diving deeper into the gold business.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040720/205306_1.html

Lucky, can you explain who would get the tender? If we assume that most of us are holding counterfeit shares and, lets say, there are 500 billion of them out there, what is the plan for identifying real shares? In other words wouldn't there have to be a cover first? To put it another way, if you are correct and there are less than 5 billion or one billion legit shares and someone thinks the company is worth taking private they could make an offer for those shares that would probably be reasonable, but what if shareholders are holding several hundred billion shares? What do you think Roger's plan is for cleaning up the structure and do you think that will have to be done before most anything else occurs? I don't see any tendency on the part of the MMs to let us out of the "boxed cellar" that we are in, and others have pointed out that there is not enough money flowing to force our way out. Dividends are a step forward, maybe CUSIP change, the dreaded reverse split, cancel and reissue, lawsuit? Would appreciate your thoughts on how you see this developing, TIA.

Hilarious! "The Ballad of UC"

“The Ballad of Urban Casavant”
(To tune of “Ballad of Jed Clampett”)

Let me tell you a story about Urban Casavant.
He finds hidden wealth that even NASA can’t.
He went out one day to Fort a la Corne;
Bought most the rights DeBeers doesn’t own.
Mineral rights, that is.
Diamonds, gold, uranium, zinc…

Urban tells Roger that he bought back all his shares,
But Urban said there seemed to be billions more out there.
Roger told Urban we can bring them to their knees…
You give share dividends and we’ll put on the squeeze.
To naked shorts, that is.
Really painful… August 20….

Well, the shareholders said, “We’re all millionaires!
There’s extra for our in-laws; even more for our heirs.”
Nakeds are exposed on the lam from the SEC,
And the longs are buying estates down in Beverly.
Hills that is.
Swimming pools… movie stars…

Turn your computer off.
Bashers, don’t come back now, ya hear!

(breakout-bull)

http://www.ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB01219&read=56551

Maybe the fact that they are on vacation is holding things up?

Are you referring to the volume? As in a volume of 100 equals 50 shares traded (50 buys plus 50 sells=100)?

I like this part (which indicates that they had at least $2,999,592.00 more in the bank than stock patrol reported):

LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 28, 2004--U.S. Canadian Minerals Inc. (OTCBB: UCAD - News) announced today that it has exercised its initial purchase under an option with CMKM Diamonds Inc. (Pink Sheets: CMKX - News). The option, agreed to last week between the two parties, has been exercised for an additional 2% interest in all of CMKX's mineral claims for $3,000,000 USD. Under the agreement reached last week, UCAD has a one-year option agreement to purchase an additional 10% interest in all of the mineral claims held by CMKX for an aggregate total of $15 million USD payable to CMKM Diamonds Inc.

Watch out there "Bin," you are admitting that you have a conscience. LOL.

Sweet! Nice work Rock. She is obsessed at unraveling the dreams of others. I suppose she fancies herself a modern thinker, which is to say that she finds it easier to make up a hundred problems than to make up one riddle. For in the case of the riddle she has to make up an answer!

Thanks for the reply. What would cause to speculate and/or invest in CMKM (if I am prying, please feel free to tell me it is none of my business).

How sure are you that you will continue to hold this stock if you are holding at all?

Sure enough. If Glenn threw down the guantlet, then Jeff just picked it up and slapped him with it.

Short sales link and a short excerpt:

http://www.rgm.com/shortselling.html

What happened next is detailed in an SEC investigation and subsequent suit by the commission against Rhino Advisors and its president, Thomas Badian. Rhino settled in February, without admitting or denying the charges, for a $1 million fine.

According to the SEC, Rhino and Badian directed a series of short sales of Sedona stock through an account at a U.S. broker-dealer held in a Rhino client’s name and controlled by Badian. At the time, Rhino’s client owned no Sedona stock. Rhino did not deliver the shares that it was selling short by the settlement date, and the broker neither bought nor borrowed stock to cover the sales. Sedona’s attorneys have named Westminster Securities, a broker-dealer that has at times listed the same address as Rhino, as the broker referred to in the SEC complaint.

According to the complaint, each day in March 2001, Rhino placed Sedona sell orders with Westminster; subsequently, Westminster placed similar sell orders with a cooperating broker, identified by Sedona as Wm V. Frankel & Co., a Nasdaq market maker in New Jersey. According to the Sedona complaint, the cooperating broker often placed these sales through various electronic communication networks, providing some market anonymity to the traders.

As the cooperating broker-dealer owned no Sedona shares, it covered its short trades through the ECNs by purchasing the shares from Rhino’s client’s account at Westminster. It did this after-hours at slight discounts to its short sale positions to ensure itself a profit. Rhino’s client, however, had no Sedona shares in its account, resulting in a short position from the ECN sales. Because the purchase sides of the wash sales were executed after hours via the ECNs and because Rhino’s client did not report the sales as short trades, the trades were not reported to the market as short sales.

Despite repeated failures to deliver the shares to complete the “long” sales from Rhino’s client’s account, Rhino’s client reportedly shorted more than 872,000 shares of Sedona in March 2001 alone. As a result of the repeated clearing failures, Nasdaq placed a short restriction on the company’s stock. According to the SEC, Rhino then moved its trading activity to an account held by its client at a Canadian brokerage firm, identified by Sedona as Thomson Kernaghan. Rhino continued to short Sedona shares through Thomson Kernaghan through mid-April 2001, eventually building up an uncovered short position of 1.19 million shares in 31 trading days.

Christian says all of the uncovered shorting and false “long” sales had the effect of counterfeiting Sedona stock and flooding the market with fraudulent sell volume, decimating Sedona’s share price. In January 2003, with its share price well below a dollar, the company was delisted by Nasdaq.

Rhino, Badian, Ladenburg, Frankel and Westminster dispute Sedona’s allegations and have filed a motion to dismiss the case with Judge Kimba Wood in New York’s Southern District Court. PIPE issuers seeking redress for naked shorting and death spiral schemes have suffered a string of losses of late.

The events detailed in the Sedona case, as well as in other stock manipulation cases brought against PIPE investors by O’Quinn and Christian, leave behind troubling notions about the degree to which deficiencies in the regulation, enforcement, and execution of short sales of U.S. equities by foreign brokers and investors promote an environment ripe for manipulation. The bitter experiences of these PIPE issuers threaten to tarnish this innovative financing structure and prevent its maturation into a powerful capital-raising tool for public companies.

All theories are subject to the theory of relativity, the real meaning of which is that our own views may pass from being relatively right to being relatively wrong. Alternately, they could pass from being relatively wrong to being relatively right.

This is not to discourage the positing of theories. Keep up the good work Casprs1 (i.e., keep thinking), you may well be proven right in the end.

Did someone sell at .0005 a few minutes ago?

Hard to convince someone that bought in a couple of years ago at .0001.

Sort of like real estate, after you buy you may have to hold for a long time before you realize a return.

Good for you Eagle! (Wonder if Phil caught my grammatical error in the reply to his post - left off the end quotation marks). LOL

Remember the old saying Phil: " Harvard graduates with 'C' averages hire the Harvard graduates with 'A' averages to work for them.

I wouldn't spend too much time basing your investment decisions on grammatical errors. LOL

Zen, I was in UGHO.OB back on 21 Jan, 2004 when, on good news (not spectacular news) it took off from .14 and wound up at a high of 2.18 on 09 Feb, 2004 (14 trading days later), a percent change of 1,457%! My thoughts at the time were (1) good grief, people have gone crazy, (2) shorts must be struggling to cover (i.e., I am seeing a short squeeze here), (3) weeeeeeee!

Factoring in a short squeeze, greed, and fear here, what are your thoughts on the likely run of CMKX.

Link to UGHO.OB chart: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=UGHO.OB

Good one Z! LOL

Global 3000: http://www.edwardsangell.com/script.php?html=yes&page=news&NewsID=149

You forgot to mention that not including the two that were recognized seperately in the report, E & A also employs 298 others, of which one includes Glenn. I guess that you are trying to say that Glenn and the others that did not make the list as individuals are just not up to snuff. Pretty specious IMO since the main thrust of the report is to recognize firms.

Surely you don't think that Glenn operates in isolation as a Partner in E & A do you? Kind of like saying Emmitt Smith broke the rushing record all by his lonesome. LOL.

Interesting opinion e3w. So if the MMs have a NSS problem this move can be seen as a sort of double squeeze. LOL.

SH - To elaborate further, keep in mind that there is no reason to be negative about CMKX unless and until the company releases a PR to the contrary. The two most exciting things about this stock is (1) we do not know what the share structure is yet (all we know is that there is somewhere between one and 500 billion outstanding shares) and we do not know the significance of what lies below the ground (all we know is that there is something between a couple of insignificant microdiamonds and the mother lode).

Favorable information about either of these two items will, IMO, cause the stock to skyrocket for a variety of reasons that have already been covered by others on this board (don't worry about having missed the analysis, it has and will be rehashed many times so you can get caught up).

Our speculative purchases of CMKX prove only that we are optimistic about the potential of this stock and will experience a modicum of sorrow if it does not pan out. Sorrow, of course, is not a bad thing because ulike pessimism (to paraphrase the great G. K. Chesterton) sorrow rests upon the value of something, pessimism on the value of nothing.

You are right, of course. The possibilities are endless. The .50 cent range is still within the realm of possibility because we do not know what the OS count is (it could be relatively small as some have suggested which would tickle me to no end -but will have to wait on word from the TA).

Until the TA speaks, I believe the best scenario is release of hard asset info (in this case diamonds), but I will certainly not complain if there is a short squeeze!

Thanks for the responses from all and GL.

Rumors abound and will continue becasue eventually someone will get something right and claim the satisfaction of "I told you so."

I have two questions, the first is who will ante up the money to make the tender offer (if there are 3.5 billion shares out there .54 cents would require almost 2 billion dollars - I don't want to argue about how many OS there are because it is pure speculation on my part, so if you believe the number is different substitute)? Secondly, why the new "awareness campaign" now if going private?

TIA for comments and opinions.

Do you think there will be a tender offer based on the publicity campaign (which, to me, points to remaining public)?

TIA for your thoughts and opinions.

Well said. The "Awareness Campaign" should put the "tender offer" theories to rest?