Amen and Well Said

Hey Angel, that was intriguing

What sort of S. Miami "slurpy" vendor is selling Eco's. I'll bet it's not "Wolfies" - lol

Please identify the chain or outlet more specifically when you have a chance as it appears that they are having good experience with the product.

Sorry DD, but this time my DD prevails

You stated "i'll stick with my hunch that Salve's interpretation is mistaken, and that the $17m claim on asset's really does only apply in the case of a bankruptcy,but i don't see any reason for arguing the point.

Now, here's the answer to your question about when Wallach and Postal can skim off $17M of the fat from the slaughtered sacred cow. The following is the exact wording relative to the preferential right of the B-2 (and B-1) shareholders to be paid $1.00 per share before any holders of the Common Shares (but after any superior preferred shares)under the conditions quoted below.

"In the event of any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the affairs of the company, whether voluntary or involuntary,"........

So it really is not limited to bankruptcy.

This is really important to the common shareholders and I believe everyone should be aware of it. While I have not posted the long legalese paragraph in its entirety there is nothing in that paragraph that modifies the meaning of the quoted phrase. You have my word.

They could get $17M while we common shareholders get the shaft.

I wish the company would stop trying to selectively hide this from a lot of the common shareholders and go ahead and put it out in PDF form so everyone could be on the same page.

Enough of this "Call the Company"

This is a discussion board

You have praised the officers and directors handling of the company.

Do you realize the company fails the Acid Test?

Do you think that might have something to do with their failure to attract intelligent, potential investors?

Don't you think it's about time that they are able to obtain loans at less than 18% interest paid to a director and his friends?

If you were a potential investor and saw 18% loans being thrown to La Familia like Mardi Gras beads would that instill you with confidence?

Where's the stock price? Is that indicative of good management?

And you want everyone to just hand them an additional 170,000,000 votes so they can what? Vote themselves 30% loans? Sell the company and pocket the proceeds?

Call the company? Well I could tell you some things I might call them, but I won't.

Hey DD, I'm up for that debate!

However there would have to be some very specific conditions:

First, and this is a deal breaker, the session would have to be absolutely transparent and available by transcript for publication on this or any other board or other media.

Second, the session would be limited to 15 minutes with questions limited to 15 seconds and answers limited to one minute. This is to hold the transcript to a readable volume by eliminating speechifying and bloviating by any participant. An additional minute might be allotted to each participant for summation

Third, the exchange would be spontaneous with no previously submitted questions or answers. This would be a shoot from the hip exchange.

Fourth, the company could avail itself of any or all officers or directors to assist Mr. Wallach with his side of the discussion subject only to the time constraints.

Fifth, as flptrnkng and myself seem to have been the ones challenged to represent this board against the company, we would be the only board participants to speak or ask questions.

Sixth, as I have not discussed this with Flp, he would obviously have to agree with my proposed conditions and/or submit modifications or amendments of his own.

Seventh, obviously the company would have to agree, or submit their modifications to these conditions.

So, bring it on!

Running bull I believe there is some confusion

in our discussions here between apples and oranges.

But first let me compliment you in that in the three months you have been posting you have made some excellent points about the rather meager use of effective public relations by the company and may even have been instrumental in getting them to upgrade somewhat. (Still they need to do better as I'm sure you'll agree)

You didn't hesitate to point out that management wasn't up to par on this and that takes a certain Chutzpah. You see, you can walk on the Dark Side.

However, the view that any officers or directors of the corporation have been, or are doing, a satisfactory job in increasing revenues, etc. is not germane to the discussion of the change to the "Articles of Incorporation"

There is no need to reward two individuals with absolute voting authority over the hundreds of other stockholders simply because they are doing exactly what they are being paid (rather handsomely) to do anyway. The rather self serving excuse, that they will be able to operate more efficiently with this absolute power, rather controverts the opinions of tens of thousands of shareholders in other companies that such a concentration of power should not exist.

And certainly, to gift them this power without the requirement that, if they want it, they can damn well buy the necessary shares, just like the rest of the commonality, is just plain wrong.

But hey, how about the included clause allowing them to sell off parts of CHDT to anyone, including themselves, and then liquidate the empty shell and receive the first $17M. Do you really think they're doing such a wonderful job that you want to depend on there being anything left for you or me when and if that happens?

Oh sure, they're such great guys and have the shareholders interests so much at heart that they would never do such a thing, but they could. Mightn't they be tempted? Wouldn't you feel better knowing that you had withheld temptation from their path?

I know I will.

You asked if I had listened to the conference call and yes I did and further, I read the transcript twice. Now let me ask you - Did you personally receive the request to vote your shares for the restatement and, if so, do you see why others may have problems with the way it was presented?.

And if you are one of (apparently) many who did not receive the original package would this lack of transparency hinder you in a detailed discussion of the subject?

Yes Flp, it says Dissenters have the right

to a speedy execution!

Hell No it don't say nothing about Dissenter's Rights cause they just ain't got none.

Do you have a URL for a Florida Statute?

Lucy, did you not receive the package? While I don't mind answering your question it is somewhat labor inefficient to have to manually type material directly from the proposal but here goes; this one is short and sweet:(This is from page three of the explanatory document and is taken exactly in context.)

The interests of the management shareholders may not coincide with the interests of the other holders of Company Common Stock.

That certainly couldn't any more exactly describe a "conflict of Interest" could it?

This is the company telling you the very same thing that I posted when I said "the possibility of a Wallach conflict of interest with the other shareholders is exactly what engendered this discussion in the first place."

Yes, it is "A very serious implication there" and I trust I have illustrated my concern to your satisfaction.

Lucy, That's because it's Top Secret LOL

Hey "U", that one line is kinda amusing

"Such advantages, in the opinion of the management of the Company, outweigh the risk of management entrenchment or potential conflicts of interest in any transactions or dealings."

Yep, that's the opinion of management alright, but I don't see how it could possibly be the opinion of anyone who carefully reads and understands, this self-serving proposal.

As a matter of fact the possibility of a Wallach conflict of interest with the other shareholders is exactly what engendered this discussion in the first place.

Sorry DD but it's a two stage process.

First, in our theoretical example, the CHDT BOD votes to sell Capstone to Systematic Development. The money from the sale flows into CHDT's coffers. So far - So good. That is a sale, not a liquidation.

Second, CHDT has thus become a shell company without any operations of its own. Now it's time to liquidate which the two majority voters happily approve and the same two lads strip off the first 17M.

No conflict at all with the voluntary sale concept because that's already over and done with.

No problem, Mon

There seems to be some serious confusion
as to what the present discussion regarding the issuance of B-2 Preferred via the necessary restatement of the Articles of Incorporation is all about.

It is NOT about the revenues or the incipient fiscal year profitability of the corporation. We are all aware of these along with the upbeat tone of the last conference call. Repeating them over and over will not make them more or less believable and since this is preaching to the choir, it is mildly annoying.

"Hey, Sales are going great"

Wheeeeeeeeeeee!

OK?

But the concept some seem to be having a problem with is that the subject concern here is about shareholders equity and the preservation thereof, not sales and profitability.

If you allow the vesting of absolute control in a couple of directors who do not have the shares to warrant this, you will have divested yourselves of any voice in the operation of the corporation.

And for those who might say, "Oh, let's give them a chance, after all I'm sure they have our best interests at heart" Well folks, this is a bell that once rung cannot be un-rung. There is no way for you to ever undo this proposal once it is passed!

Purple Wonder (and Uranium) Many Thanks

But you really didn't have to point out the excellent advice I freely gave on that old post; most old timers still remember my outstanding record for accuracy.

You embarrass me, but since you took the time and trouble to reference it, let's see how well those who took that advice to sell on December 31st 2009 fared.

Here's my entire post for those who didn't follow the URL you gave:

Own CHDO? Great tax loss opportunity -
Sell CHDO today for the tax loss which for some may be as high as 95%
If you're still in love with it, buy back in after 30 days. It's unlikely it's going anyplace in the meantime.

Wow, was that accurate, or what???

Let's take a look at what could have happened based on a "theoretical" case. Obviously I'm not going to name any shareholder without his permission and also I don't know if he took my advice, or not.

Our theoretical individual had purchased a large quantity of CHDT/CHDO stock back in late 2006 as the stock price was jittering around in the teens. Let's say he purchased around 500,000 shares at an average price of some $0.14, or $70,000 worth.

Had he sold on the 31st for a penny a share he would have received $5000 cash plus a $65,000 tax loss to be used to offset gains in 2009, or to carry forward indefinitely to offset taxable gains in later years, or to offset $3000 of earned income each year for over 20 years.

Now for the second phase. I suggested anyone who did this could buy back in after thirty days (to avoid the wash sale rule). So suppose he bought back at the end of January. He would have gotten his stock back for what he sold it for.

By the end of February 2010 CHDO was still trading around a penny with dips to .008

Toward the end of March 2010, the stock was trading frequently between .007 and .008.

By April 2010 it was trading at .007 with dips below .007.

And toward the end of May, 2010 it was closing consistently at .005. Had our stockholder used the $5K he received for his stock back at year end he could have purchase 100% more stock than he sold without spending an extra cent.

And he would still have had that great, big, gorgeous tax write-off going for him

And today he would be holding twice as much stock with a long term tax basis.

Yes guys, my advice is excellent but this shouldn't be about me. We should confine ourselves to discussion of the stock and the current attempted rape of shareholders.

(Oh, by the way, I couldn't take advantage of my own advice back then because, you see, I didn't have a loss to write off.)

But thanks again for bringing this to everyone's attention.

Unfortunately, your last question is the one I fear may be closest to the truth.

Approval of the revised Articles of Incorporation would allow the Wallach/Postal team to strip CHDT bare by selling off portions, or whole units (like Capstone) to themselves or to their friends without any possibility of shareholder intervention. That's stated very specifically in the proposal and is not stated here as opinion.

Normally they might be stopped by a majority vote of the Board of Directors but they have allowed for this contingency also. It's a slick ploy that I'll discuss later.

Should this happen, those wonderful increasing revenues may turn out to be worth diddly-squat to the average shareholder.

Dumpster Diving for Fun and Profit

No, not my fun and profit and really it was my recycle box not a dumpster, but I found the original mailing package for the 24 pages.

They were sent via FedEx Express Priority Overnight marked "Extremely Urgent" postmarked 17 NOV 2011 and hand delivered to me on Friday the 18th.

I could not find a shipping cost on the envelope and I'm not familiar with FedEx pricing. This would have been a one pound package from Deerfield Beach, FL to Atlanta, GA. - Got any idea of the cost?

I wonder how many of these were sent and if the new packages are being "Priority Overnighted" because if they are, we stockholders are really paying quite a toll to help finance Wallach's little power grab.

I agree running bull, it now appears all shareholders may ultimately get a chance to vote.

One thing, this restructuring really doesn't have anything to do with doubling sales. As a matter of fact, sales increased nicely before this power play.

Is this proposal to your best interest? In my opinion that's a resounding NO.

It wasn't a rumor Tony but rather an attempt to see if this was a cutoff point. The fact that you received your solicitation exactly one week after some of the rest of us is interesting.

Why did it take them a week to get around to this?

Perhaps they didn't get the required approvals from the 2mm+ shareholders and are now trying to take another bite of the apple?

Perhaps sufficient furor has been generated to force them into some semblance of transparency?

Thanks for your input, it was helpful.

Well we actually don't get to vote against the Written Consent of shareholders in lieu of a Shareholders Meeting but we are generously allowed to withhold our vote for it.

What totally frosts me is that a select few of us are being asked to join this little cabal designed to overthrow shareholders rights and privileges.

Why weren't all shareholders at least notified as to this little scheme???

Why the Secrecy?

I know that many may not see this power grab as a problem nor understand how it could be one, but for those others who would like to be able to at least hear how they may be getting screwed, I'll continue to post some facts.

Good question dizzydon.

And as usual it contains one of your excellent analyses respected by one and all as DD's-DD.

You're right, they have operated like a "controlled corporation" for the very simple reason that they do not presently meet the qualifications for listing on a major stock exchange such as the NYSE or NASDAQ. Thus they operate "under the radar". That they are presently able to avoid the legal requirements for independent directors and compensation committees, etc, does not make it right but does make it possible.

Here's the catch. By formally establishing themselves now as a "controlled corporation" they grandfather themselves into this status which means that, even if in the future they obtained NASDAQ listing, they could retain the "controlled corporation" exemptions indefinitely. That's not to minor shareholder's interests.

By the way, that 17 million dollar reduction in the OS which gets them a free 170,000,000 votes? That Preferred B-2 stock is a yo-yo. B-2 can be converted back into common in any of a number of circumstances.

I wonder too how much trouble they are having "getting out the vote".

Sorry but I didn't understand your point

It appears that you were answering Sazo233's request for the "full document" pertaining to the current request from management for approval to change the Articles of Incorporation. The paragraph you quoted is from an earlier proposal dated more than six months ago and does not relate to the present discussion.

That earlier Schedule 14-C from which you quoted has nothing to do with the present attempted power grab which aims to seize all voting power from the existing common stockholders, to negate the requirement for a majority of independent directors and members of the nominating and compensation committees and to grant up to a 17 Million Dollar "gift" to the two holders of the B-2 Preferred in the event CHDT ceases operations for any of a variety of reasons.

The paragraph you quoted has to do solely with matters to be considered by the BOD where a simple majority vote of the Directors is required. That would require 4 members and has nothing to do with how many shares any one Director, or any group of board members, hold.

Notwithstanding the above, we can certainly agree that there are "fiduciary obligations ......... to serve the best interest of the stockholder".

And therein lies the rub!

It's great to have your input because that's what makes for more interesting discussions.

Running Bull, what do you think?

Have you found anything in the request for your vote that in any way would enhance your position as a CHDO stockholder? If not, please withhold approval.

To answer you question about a "controlled company" if you Google the term you'll find reference to quite a few, most small but some surprisingly large, Over and above a couple of shareholders claiming majority you will also find many instances where one company holds a majority interest in another public company thus rendering the controllee a controlled company. In practice, private corporation (companies), although not traded, exhibit similarities to controlled companies as pertains to governance.

So "controlled companies" are neither good nor bad, nor successful nor bankrupt, per se; it all boils down whether the best interests of the investors are being served in each individual case.

By the way, so far everyone who has indicated receiving the package has held over two million shares. Without invading your privacy it would be helpful to know if you fit this pattern so that we can pin down exactly how the executive is trying to control this vote. Don't need to know the exact number of shares you hold but could you indicate if it is 2 million or more, or less than 2 million? Thanks.

13 Million shares looks exactly right.

That should be an easy goal for them to obtain based on the principle that if you shotgun out enough forms, a bunch of people are going to approve them automatically.

What I am having trouble understanding is where did they get that first 49%. Frankly, and this is of course opinion, I'm not sure that they have those in hand.

Hurricaneman - good to see you back. Maybe some other old timers will join us in the discussion here now.

Interesting that you received the proposal and you hold something over 2 million shares. It appears that Porky who states he also presently holds at least 2 million received the package. I'm presently at approximately 3.3 Million having picked up a little over 2mm the other day in an attempt to jump start this wreck.

It seems safe to say that those holding at least 2 million shares were invited to the party. I would be interested in hearing more from others who either did or did not receive the data along with the number of shares they hold; strictly voluntary of course.

sazo, I applaud your caution.

If there had been a way to post all 24 Pages of the package of the proposal,I would have done so. If I had been able to find the proposal on a SEC or other government or public site, I would have posted the URL so all could read it.

If you did not receive the proposal yourself you may now understand why I am publicizing what should not be a secret coup by management.

That is why I opened asking who had received the package .....I didn't know if it was just a select few, or everyone.

I'm as puzzled as you guys.

That's why I ask who else had received this solicitation from CHDT.

Basically, the board approved the creation of the B-2 preferred BUT this requires an amendment to the charter to take effect and apparently they are short of the voting shares to make such an amendment by 2%,

Redacted from their solicitation:

Under Florida law, the creation of the Series B-2Preferred Stock requires amendment of our charter. The charter amendment was attained by and then shareholder approval, which shareholder approval was achieved by obtaining written consents in lieu of a shareholder meeting. After filing the amended charter with the State of Florida we are required to mail the attached information statement to all shareholders, The adoption of the Series B-2 Preferred Stock is effective twenty days after the making of the information statement to shareholders (or December 7, 2011 .........We currently have approximately 49% of the 51% required and your support will enable us to move forward with minimal delay and expense to the company

On the one hand they say they have approved this and on the other they say they are short by 2%. All I can say is that it looks like December 7th will be a day that goes down in infamy,

I have no questions for the company on this but I certainly think that any shareholder who did not receive a copy of this solicitation should do so.

It appears that this is still up in the air and this may be why they haven't made a "'material event" statement. Soliciting only certain stockholders without notification to all seems like very dirty pool. But if you're looking to steal a corporation, I guess that's a minor flaw.

I'll be out and about for a couple of hours but will be glad to participate in discussion of this event later on today.

Suppose Wallach directs CHDT to sell off Capstone?

Further, suppose he and Postal decide to sell off Capstone to, for example, Systematic Development Group LLC, or another Wallach enterprise, or even a new "entity" that they, or some of their associates will control.

They would have that authority.

Suppose they sell off Capstone for $16,250,000 which would be roughly double the current market Cap of the entire CHDT corporation. That money would immediately swell CHDT's coffers and show an increase in net assets (minus the present Goodwill entry which would cancel).

So far no money has trickled down to the stockholders from this deal but the stockholders equity has increased. Sounds good???

But wait, since CHDT Corp is now a shell corporation with no operations, why not just liquidate the poor thing and distribute the proceeds to the common stockholders like us?

Well, there's another catch cleverly written into this new Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation.

If CHDT suffers "liquidation, dissolution, or winding up the affairs" of the Company" then the shareholders of Series B-1 and B-2 (B-2 being the new series to be owned exclusively by Wallach and Postal) are entitled to first shot at the proceeds to the tune of $1.00 per share before any other distribution is made to the common shareholders. That's $17,000,000.00 (Seventeen Million Dollars)right off the top and just for the B-2 shareholders (Wallach & Postal) alone.

As a common shareholder, can you spell "You're Screwed"?

If you have given your approval to this "Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation" it is my opinion that you should immediately rescind same. It is also my opinion that if you have not as yet given such approval, you should not do so.

Read this paragraph carefully, it's verbatim:

"The interest of the management shareholders may not coincide with the interests of other holders of Company Common Stock. Furthermore, such insiders may take such corporate opportunities for themselves or offer them to other persons or entities, or they may also consider combining our operations with those of another company, including ones affiliated with an insider, or an associate of an insider."

Good Grief - they're flat out telling you that they're granting themselves a license to steal. If you still think they have your best interests at heart, I suggest you read the above paragraph again carefully.

Whose interest will be served by this proposal?

Very simply, Messrs Wallach and Postal.

Presently these two gentlemen control 32.3% of the voting power CHDT corp. Under the proposed "Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation" their control will soar to 58.4% and will become absolute.

They will be able to, WITHOUT SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL, control all company decisions including election of directors, acquisitions, mergers, and ASSET SALES..

If you think losing the right to have your vote count is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Approval of the "Restated Articles of Incorporation" will, according to the letter from CHDT Corp, result in CHDT becoming a "controlled company". A "controlled company" is able to ignore many corporate governance requirements, even if CHDT should eventually move from the OTCQB and obtain listing on the NASDAQ or New York Stock Exchange.

They would be exempt.............. they would NOT have to:
(1) meet the requirement that the board have a majority of independent directors.
(2) meet the requirement that a nominating/governance committee be composed of entirely of independent directors.
(3) meet the requirement that the compensation committee be composed entirely of independent directors.
(4) meet the requirement for an annual review of any governance or compensation committee because they won't be required to have either.

And what does the company.say about this? The following is lifted verbatim from the solicitation!

"Such exemptions may entrench management shareholders voting control over the company and result in the rejection of proposals or transactions that may serve the interest's of the Company's public shareholders."

Yep, that's YOUR interest they have no obligation to serve despite being what a BOD is elected to do.

Did any of you receive this material?

This past weekend I received a package of material from CHDT corp requesting me to approve voting all my shares in favor of adopting a set of "Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation" It is possible that this went out only to major shareholders

If you received such a letter WITHHOLD YOUR APPROVAL!!!

In my opinion, Wallach and Jeffrey Postal are attempting to seize absolute control of the corporation by granting themselves the exclusive right to exchange 17,000,000 shares of common stock for a like amount of a new Preferred Series B-2 Stock. There is no cost to them to do this ............it is a straight swap.

The catch is that this Series B-2 has special voting privileges. Each share of the new stock entitles the holder to 10 (TEN) votes per share. That means that these two directors would have 170,000,000 (That's One Hundred Seventy Million) votes over and above their remaining common shares.

All of our common shares will be effectively disenfranchised.

Own CHDO? Great tax loss opportunity -

Sell CHDO today for the tax loss which for some may be as high as 95%

If you're still in love with it, buy back in after 30 days. It's unlikely it's going anyplace in the meantime.

Wheeeee!

This has been a great year for investors.

It was almost impossible not to make money on the the enormous menu of stocks whose prices had been driven down in 2008.

If they were quality stocks.

To offset the taxes on these gains, the IRS gives you a gift in tax loss accounting.

By selling before year end you can offset taxable gain by pruning your holdings of losers. Not only can you benefit this year but if your losses exceed your gains you can (1) offset up to $3000 of other income by any excess of losses over gains and (2) carryforward indefinitely any remaining losses to use against future capital gains.

One caveat, do not buy back a stock on which you take a loss for tax purposes within 30 day and do not try to take a loss on stocks you have purchased within the past 30 days. This is a violation of the "Wash Rule" and will invalidate the tax loss.

So any stocks you have been scammed into buying at inflated prices, particularly on unregulated boards which encourage pump and dump schemes to operate under their umbrella of protectionism, can today be sold at some benefit to you.

Afraid that turkey is going to fly the minute you sell it? Remember most companies will not be reporting year end earnings for many weeks into 2010 thus it's unlikely that your pet stock is going to do much in anticipation of earning within the next thirty days. So if you're not sick of "turkey" you can always buy back in later, probably at the same price or better.

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS GREAT TAX LOSS SALE WHICH ENDS AT 4:00PM TODAY.

And Happy New Year!

bbb, just a word of thanks !

I looked at the Seaspan SSW stock (not to be confused with Seaway) that you mentioned here the other day and saw that it had been drastically oversold based on the dividend cut.

Grabbed a bunch at 6.19 and now, two weeks later, it's up 20% and still has "legs".

Thanks for the research - who says you can't learn good things in jail?

Despite an optimistic conference call from CHDTcorp

which resulted in over a million shares traded yesterday, today's volume fell by roughly 75% and failed to reach the daily average volume level. At this time the stock simply fails to excite investors.

Thus, caution is advised in purchasing shares of CHDO until later this Fall.

I'm sure you're right!

The problem is not Off-Topic post deletions.

Those are only a symptom of the real problem, to wit:

The moderator on the CHDO board is out-of-control!

Dave, if you won't pay attention to the messages both private and public directly addressing the problem, you might pay attention to the wholesale defections from the Ihub CHDO board. These folks still want to discuss the stock but have gone elsewhere to do it.

Not good!

Today another long time poster publicly announced he was leaving because of censorship! (I just checked - his post was deleted!!! LOL)

Today, an Assistant Moderator also resigned from the board!

Now if you believe that "off-topic" posts, or the deletion thereof, is the root of the problem on the CHDO board, is this your perception, or fact? I realize this is a moot point inasmuch as you have unlimited power to "perceive" a problem anyway you choose, as an administrator.

But how about a simple test? Even if this mass of deleted posts are truly off-topic they are hardly a deadly virus. Let those of us who feel these deletions are "political" post a couple of our most recently deleted post on say, the "Parking Lot". There, in the cold harsh light of peer review the truth should be evident. Were these posts truly off-topic or not?

Sound OK?

Here's a hint for those pesky rollover ads

I'm talking about the underlined words that appear, not only in Ihub messages, but in articles and messages throughout the net.

There is a little applet (I think it's called a bookmarklet) that you install on your Firefox Links bar (May also work with IE). When you run into one of those minefield messages that you can't navigate without learning more than you ever wanted to know about stuff you don't care about, you simply click on the link, and instant serenity. Every rollover popup is eliminated from that message. Only drawback is that you have to click it on each message you want to manage. It doesn't stay permanently "lit".

It's called intelli<nix> ........Google it. (You'll be glad you did)

Update: 15 out of the last 43 posts

on the CHDO board have been deleted today. That's 35%.

This is my fifth post of the day, three have been on this board and 2 on the CHDO board. One of those two was a deliberate violation in a desperate attempt to get an admin to review what's going on there.

BACKFIRED! (LOL)

I'd say something about your using "sand"

Except I'm in enough trouble already (LOL)

But why indeed?

Out-of-control Mod on the CHDO Board?

Take a look at the message numbers for the past 24 hours on the CHDO board:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=4344

and you will see that out of slightly more than 40 posts, TEN are missing; that's almost 25%!

Of the posts that are missing that I had a chance to review before they disappeared, none (including a couple of mine) were off topic, but all were in simple disagreement with an expressed position of the moderator, although not personal attacks

It is difficult to get a requested review before the original posts are scrolled of the board.

What do I expect do be done about this - why, absolutely nothing!

(Unless I get zapped for bringing it up LOL)