Sorry Ben, bad news. It seems during the creation of that spreadsheet, you accidentally entered the wrong conversion rate numbers. As previously established, those are not the conversion rates UNGS is subject to. Hopefully you used the autocalculate function on excel, know what i mean? lol! Have a good night!

Don't red herring me. I've obviously brought up some points that aren't congruent with your 64B share notion that cannot be disproved. I know what a toxic loan is. I also know they're not converted at that rate unless those are the agreed upon terms.

If the terms are the same, you should have no trouble referencing the terms of our loan. Why, choose a different company. Could it be that the terms of our loan are not the same? Do they establish an
Agreed conversion rate? No? Oh okay. Well have you found any other instances of this occurring? No again?! How odd. What if (and I'm just working off the cuff here) this is a very rare and specific case in point where the company and financers agreed on a conversion price and therefore it doesnt apply to this scenario? Oh that's it! So referencing it really doesn't have any value because it's apples and oranges. Good to know.

Lol no dude. We done lost here. Now we wait for our shares to be split into irrelevance.

Interesting. I don't see anywhere in there "agreed conversion price of .00002". Could it be that those aren't the terms of our loan and there aren't 64B made up shares to hit the market because the loan referenced is a very rare and specific case in which the company and the financers came upon a specific price.

Yes yes that's it.

Always fun to play.

Basically false on all accounts. Most notably the obvious inaccuracies of the potential 64B shares which has already been shown as untrue. There has been no evidenced supplied that suggests this is the rate in which it converts nor the total to be converted. Citing one company which agreed to those terms (because they designed those terms and therefore the situations are nonconforming) is insufficient as evidence mostly because it isn't evidence. While I'm on the topic of evidence, I was told UNGS loan terms were exactly the same. Any chance you have access to a document stating that?

I'll wait.

Are the terms EXACTLY the same?

Well Ben, please post the terms of our loan.

I'll wait.

Thank goodness you posted that. I remembered it was something shady about the "evidence".

"Based on an agreed conversion price"

Please find the same wording on our terms.

I'll wait.

No no i read it. Your interpretation is wrong. You can't prove that these conversions occur at k levels (because they don't) or prove our terms are the same.

Ireviewed it when you presented it but you couldn't prove our terms were the same. That's why you reference other companies.

You've yet to present your evidence here nor can you prove that our terms are the same as their terms. I even took the time to follow the chitty chat with the "DD and fraud board fraud".

Boy oh boy i sure have missed this.

Haha what a sick joke, brother.

Oh goodness. Making up the conversion rate of .00000001 again are we? Oh well. While UNGS is dead, the fact that 40B won't hit the market will be more than sufficient evidence about how inaccurate that theoretical conversion rate is.

It's a good indicator sure. But players on the whole don't care about preseason football. No one is going out of their way unless they're trying to make the team.

Packers destroyed the Eagles last year. Preseason means nothing. I'm an eagles fan too

I sure hope so.

What makes you say that

I don't understand what people are saying this is something people know..literally all the tome companies will release about their profits. Why all the shade?

No sir, you do not.

I'll bet money this week's earlier release was the end of month in question.

Oh i dunno if it's coming. Just a thought m

Link have i bragged to you recently that i drove a shot 353 last week?
Also after opening triple quad birdie quad triple (8-8-2-8-7) i shot 67 over the next 13 holes so just over 5 strokes per hole.

If you ever hit upstate ny, come visit.

Share buyback and maybe a 150% fiscal year gain would send this.

That's wildly inaccurate.

The CEO never said that.

I'll eat the dip with my bare hands

Maybe it will try magic trick.

Hilarious, right? Here I am discussing a fairly simple concept off the cuff (and accurately, mind you) and i don't even get the decency of a fair debate.

Anyways, the fact is, the terms of our loan are not the the same as the terms of either of those loans. If the terms of our loans were the same, we'd have just quoted our own loans terms because those are the terms in question.

Sorry. This is not the SEGI board. If you want to prove UNGS conversions are the same terms, please provide the terms of the UNGS loans.

No no no. Show me the line where it said "the agreed conversion rate of .00001" or comparable. Why else would you reference the terms of a stock which is not ours unless you couldn't prove that our terms of conversion were NOT the same. Which as we all know, they are not.

No no no. Show me the line where it said "the agreed conversion rate of .00001" or comparable. Why else would we reference the terms of a stock which is not ours unless you couldnt have proved that our terms of conversion were the same. Which as we all know, they are not.

Okay. Why did you reference those terms and not our terms? If you know they're identical to our terms you must have access to our terms. So why choose these terms and not our own.

Could it be as simple as the terms of ours are NOT the same and in an effort to save face we've referenced an extremely rare and obscure scenario in which two companies AGREED to untraditional terms and trying to generalize DESPITE being told that's not how it works from someone actually reputable?

You're right, mystery solved.

"Agreed conversion price"


Mystery solved.

I never debated what the notes said. I debated tag thinking the conversion would be based off of a .00001 trade (a trade that i proved time and time again doesn't qualify as a historically accountable trade) proved either a profound lack of understanding of the market or an interest in purposefully lying. Please note I'm not the blond squirrel here. I never debated the notes existed. I debated the idea that they could turn into 65 billion and I used evidence and experience to prove it then i let reality do the rest. UNGS is still subject to a very unsightly 6.5 billion but its hardly the hilariously inaccurate 65 billion that was quoted. I'm sure they'll sell that 65 billion soon.

I will accept the apologies or rounds of applause of My correct assessment anytime. To assume a .00001 trade would count when basically all agencies don't even LIST it as a trade.

Can you REALLY say forever? In 300 years they wont let someone use the ticker name? I find that hard to believe.

Why doesn't ihub list it in its 52 week low?

Find anywhere that cites that as the low?

Hahaha we'll see how it works out. I can assure you it's not the way you think it will. Mostly because you're misinterpreting the rules you so staunchly adhere to.

You keep saying that word "fact"

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Facts are like uhhh....how do i explain... real and true things. Those things are not real or true thus they are not facts. The fact that the shares havent inflated to that level indicate something has happened.