we must have, 4diddy ...

Is truth stranger than fiction or what!

Can't wait for edgy's return. This board just isn't the same without him. Wonder if he's sweatin' bullets these days. Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

Oh but wait ... inet says it doesn't matter what anyone does or has done, as long as he gets his money back. Sumpin like that.

crow ...

there's a funny story relating to her "application" to join **THAT** (my closer imitation for the day) board ... ask her! I'm sure she'll tell you!

What in the world is capnwow on NOW, with his endless posting 'n pasting ... any idea? Why do you s'pose he hasn't answered rotten's very simple question to him?

And raiderman's "reasoned" thoughts just go on and on ad tedium.

Seems no one really wants to address milchip's concerns.

And oh yes, where has edgy gone? Regrouping? Not at all like him to be silent for more than three hours at a stretch.

inet & scared ...

inet ... see your happy tax or financial advisor. But before you do, read the link I provided. Or don't do either. Matters not at all to me.

scared ... yes indeed, perhaps malc should have been given a bill for failed services. Except he really didn't fail those who "hired" him, did he. In words of one syllable: no.

All's well here, thanks. I very much hope it is with you and yours, too.

I should have said ...

"probably got very little or nothing" on the record.

What he got under the table (ie, off the record) is at this point anyone's guess.

scared ... re "past obligations"

I think these are probably the "past obligations of record":

In 2000 or so, malc "consulted" to loch (ie, Boone et al) and probably got very little or nothing for his "services" which included getting LH onto military testing facilites (Yuma comes to mind but I think there was another one, east coast) and arranging for the Taipower work (the report of which, if you remember, was sent "by accident" to osscout who then gave the report he "accidentally" received to capndagood for safe keeping -- or was it the other way around, that mike gave osscout the report HE had gotten "by accident"? It's been too long; can;t remember).

There were also no doubt other "consulting services" MP provided for LH. If you ask capnmike very very nicely, perhaps he'll tell you what they were.

WOW !!! (tm caphndanotsogoodatdiversion)

The natives are r e a l l y getting restless and nervous (all except inet but as with information about Roths, his mind's made up and he refuses to understand the significance of information laid out right in front of him, so that's no surprise).

LM -- I, too, doubt malc will be at the sh'holder's meeting. I'll go so far as to wonder if there will even be one!

4diddy -- do ya think atxman might have been zapped from RB along with everyone else? Wouldn't be surprised.

Oh what tangled webs, etc. I hear smoke spooks spiders. And then they run for cover.

That could be just an old wives tale, though.

ps diddy ... remember this post?

By: ATXMAN
08 Aug 2002, 11:47 AM EDT Msg. 149580 of 149591

Ontheegde/Robert, sir yes you are absolutely correct this is a message board
where information is exchanged and questions are asked. Since you have on
many occasions asked CiscoKidd, where and how he became involved in Loch, I
would like to ask you the same but in a different format. I have no proof
that this handle you post under means you are the same person who has
assisted Loch in the past, so again these are questions and not statements.
However if you would admit to being the same person that would be helpful,
as I would be willing to share more information and questions.

1. Are you currently employed as a broker working small-cap issues?
2. Have you ever promoted Loch as a "buy" via the telephone for your
company?
3. Did you take it upon yourself to contact Baker via telephone in late 99',
and inform him that you could assist with fundraising?
4. Did you not receive a 5% to 7% fee from Baker, for private placements?
Were these fees paid in free-trading stock, restricted stock, or cash?
5. Do you still have clients that are waiting on their stock certificates
from Loch?
6. Did you not participate and raise funds for Loch on 4 different
occasions?
7. How many times did you sit in with TB and friends to discuss promoting
Loch's share price via message boards?
8. In what month did certain private placement holders, contact you
regarding their investment and the rash of negative information but you
informed them everything was ok and you assured them that B&B were men of
the highest integrity and that upon receiving their private placement
shares, if they wanted out you would make sure they would be out with a
profit?
9. Based upon the above did you not inform management that certain plays of
stock would be beneficial to all, like a 3 for 1 stock offering?
10. Did you not meet MP when he was under a consulting agreement with Loch?
11. Did you not bring certain private placement holders from Loch into CDEX
with assurances, that their money would be better protected with this team
as they were men of the highest integrity?
12. Did you not know in advance before any other shareholder that Loch, was
going under the scope of the SEC? Based on that did you not sell shares and
inform other's that it's time to sell?
13. Did you at any time inform certain members of Loch that you would assist
in selling their shares with private placements?

On a final note could you please look over one of my earlier posts addressed
to you about the conflict of interest that you would have regarding a suit.

Thank You

welp ... that's my three posts for the day. Chirp.

of course, diddy4 ...

boone successfully roped malc in, on the golf course no doubt. Anyone who hits the ball a country mile would have no trouble convincing a mild mannered deeply religious sec-savvy lawyer that all was t'riffic, just t'riffic and the future brighter than bright.

But ya know what? I bet (sorry, scared -- it must be catching!) you do ... there were a coupla peeps who weren't taken in by those "absurd forecasts", and then I think the mild mannered malc turned just plain nasty.

So I hear.

(btw ... loved your preguntas to capndawow)

edgy ... ohyesindeedy

I have them, as do others (including the authorities).

I don't know how much more specific I can be.

edgy ...

too bad (but not surprising) you didn't respond to my question, but instead try to play a semantics and "background" game. You, of all peeps! You should know by now to just keep quiet when "uncomfortable" questions are asked you; ask capnwow ... he gets it.

Here they are again, in case you want to reply:

and what did you think of malcbaby's projections in the material he generated to "invite" people to give their money to the cause back in the daze?

or did you write that for him, too?

Note it's a two-part question. Can you handle it?

no! What's the link? (TIA as this is my last permitted post for today)

welp, LM ...

the daze/s I was referring to was/were soonly after malcy took over the reins.

around the time malcy replied to you "via" edgy.

so if he or they ever try to deny it, their stoopidity beggars belief.

everything's recorded for posterity and held for safekeeping in voluminous, absolutely voluminous SEC files on loch/cdex.

kinda like the structure of and payments from the H&J trust are recorded for posterity and held for safekeeping in voluminous, absolutely voluminous SEC files on loch/cdex.

edgy ...

and what did you think of malcbaby's projections in the material he generated to "invite" people to give their money to the cause back in the daze?

or did you write that for him, too?

edited:

btw, lmorovan ...

did you zap my post to inet written last night, the one with the link to Roth information in it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you didn't, then who did? Someone who just plain doesn't like me? Someone whose sole occupation is to read my posts and "decide" what's acceptable and what isn't? Must be.

What a wunnerful board this is, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, as well as diff'rent "rules."

I'm replying here, instead of in a new post, because I'm limited to only 3 posts a day, did you know that?

ot inet ...

I appreciate your willingness to talk constructively. And isn't it interesting that my post to you got zapped? I can't imagine why -- all I did was say you were showing your abysmal ignorance. Was that bad form, after you'd attacked me? Seems pretty mild compared with some of the insults regularly hurled at posters here, by you and others.

But oh well.

That aside ... I do understand what you're saying, but perhaps you're overlooking something. Of course I have no idea what your tax situation is, but it seems to me that you could roll over your IRA into a ROth and come out ahead. Yes, upfront taxes are due for the rollover/conversion year -- even though it seems seamless, it's a two-step process, technically and for tax purposes, the first being a distribution from the IRA and the second opening a Roth. Taxes would be due on all earnings and on tax-deferred contributions in the IRA, if any. That could be a major hit, depending on your tax bracket, etc.

But you might not know you can roll over only a portion of your IRA and mitigate those taxes, if that's a consideration. If you set up a 2nd Roth later, the same clock ticks for the 2nd Roth, from the date of your first rollover. (Not sure how many other rollovers you can do after the first one.) That way, you would continue to withdraw whatever the minimum requirement is from your IRA for your own needs and let the Roth grow unfettered. Assuming you don't deplete your traditional IRA within those 5 years, you've got both accounts working for you -- one growing tax free and the other paying out.

Now ... if something should happen to you before the 5-year Roth wait is up (and it starts as of Jan 1 in the year of the rollover, not as of the actual date -- so a Dec 31, 2005 rollover is treated as if it had been done on Jan 1, 2005; Dec 31, 2006 as of Jan 1, 2006; etc), there well might not be any taxes due at all. Disability is one of those qualifying events, as it is for a traditional IRA. If you should die, same thing for your "qualified" dependents, and at this point in time dependents who qualify include even grandchildren.

Say you set up a Roth on 2006 and named a qualifying family member as beneficiary and then died before reaching 87 or before Jan 1, 2011 or whatever (I find it hard to think that will happen -- you seem pretty tough to me, and I sincerely applaud you for that). As I understand it, no taxes due on his/her "inheritance."

I think another qualifying event for a tax-free Roth distribution before death or disability is the first-time purchase of a home, even for a child or grandchild -- not sure about that, though.

I used to know and communicate a great deal about tax-free and tax-deferred retirement income plans/accounts, inet. But here's my usual caveat, then and now: tax laws are complicated and change frequently so see your happy IRS- and IRA/Roth-savvy tax advisor and do not take anything I write as advice, much less gospel.

That said, it seems to me you could "work the system" more effectively. Especially if your IRA is mostly made up of CDEX stock and you believe it "may" be worth $20/share at some point (which as you well know I think is beyond laughable, but to each his own). As you also undoubtedly know, you can invest within a tax-deferred or tax-free account, without taking a distribution, and keep the tax man at bay; maybe you can find an even "more promising" stock to put your money in, one without the "tainted" history of loch/cdex. I hope you appreciate my tactful understatement. I could have said "rank and foul".

Buena suerte.

hi there, inet ...

such a lot of words.

re "intelligence" -- if you're "intelligent enough" to "make a reasonable decision" what's your excuse for not rolling your investments over into a roth? Your sad little excuse that they didn't exist when you first set up an IRA or whatever it was isn't even relevant!

re "understanding your position in this investment" -- isn't that what broker statements are for? Don't yours tell you how many shares you hold and at what price?

re "inferring" [sic] a little doubt -- you'd really serve yourself well by taking even just a basic vocabulary course.

re "so called facts" -- are they so-called only? But I forget myself ... you've already stated you "do not waste time digging into verifying most of the BS that transpires on most of these boards."

re paying attention to my posts -- ya know what? I really couldn't care less what or whom you pay attention to, but what in god's name would make you think I'd ever want to have a vested interest in cdex (ie, buy some cdex and thereby establish my credibility, I suppose)? Vhatcha take me for, a fool?

oh michael, ferpitysake ...

do you really think blanketing the board with your "research" and "thinking-man" posts will bury rotten's question to you?

First, you need to apologize to him for apparently lying. Then you need to tell him the real reason why you wanted to "engage" him -- in the name of candor and transparency.

Are you even capable of candor and transparency?

Or are you just another patsy/fall guy, like "Dr" Henry Blair?

rotten ...

Maybe capnwow will post pubicly that he made a mistake, and apologize? that he THOUGHT what he told you (whatever it was) was accurate? that he would never want to be a party to unsupported hearsay, much less rumormongering? that his intentions are simply to uncover the truth? Nevah 'appen!

As for inet ... well, by his own admission he doesn't probe anything very carefully or deeply. Not a terribly deep thinker, I think it's fair to say. And "go after the hypesters"? Nevah 'appen!

I bet every single one of the "loyal longs" wishes their money had been bet on invn! Instead, here they still are how many years after 9/11 still b'leeving loch/cdex actually has something to offer them except a pit to throw their good money after bad.

What's really sad is how easily they're strung along by the likes of raiderman and his "I have a dream" posts.

inet ...

You don't b'leeve rotten, about the "offered shares"?

Because you "weren't there"?

Are you suggesting that (horror of horrors) rotten made that up?

ohdearohdearohdear ... who can you b'leeve these days?

rotten: did you make that up? Inet seems to think you did.

But akshally, I'm much more interested in why capnwow felt the overwhelming urge to contact you now than I am in what inet says he thinks. I'd imagine a few others are, too. Too bad capnwow refuses to discuss it when he opened the dialogue, and very publicly at that. Just doesn't make any sense.

omygoodness, capnwow ...

guess you snuck in under the 15-minute edit wire and corrected your bold mistake. You really should think before you speak or type.

Would that all your bold misteaks were that easy to fix, huh?

hi, capnwow ...

What do you make of rotten's "discovery" (as in a legal sense as well)? About his contention that you were setting him up by telling him sumpin that just wasn't true, apparently?

And btw, I'm truly amazed, just WOW amazed, that you think your "information" about SSI and Sandia answers all questions.

Also truly amazed that you forgot how to close the bold.

You're slipping, michael -- in mud. Hope you have 4-wheel drive.

Now that is truly funny, rotten!

"BTW: I know I would have had legal proceedings brought against me because I've already discussed the issue with the same attorney you gave me the information on. Needless to say, he wasn't very happy about it. Also, said attorney told me that information was totally untrue!! Maybe you should consider hiring your own attorney!"

Maybe capnwow b'leeves he's got immunity or sumpin, can say whatever suits his needs and get away with it.

btw ... was he kool and kollected during your phone conversation? He always seems so kool and kollected in his posts (except when he allows himself the occasional WOW !!!!!) Or was he a little edgy ... I mean nervous?

I hope you continue posting "about certain issues." Bring it on, indeed. Long overdue.

Instead of "helping" 4diddy, capnwow ...

why don't you answer rotten's question about your sudden interest in talking and meeting with him face to face in a 3-letter office?

You do seem scattered; can't stick to one topic for more than a few posts. Why is that?

why has capnwow

gone back to his old stomping ground, instead of posting here?

what's he scared of?

why is keel no longer a judge?

so many questions, so few (public) answers.

sounds about right to me, crow ...

Capnwow made it very clear that he isn't afraid ... but he didn't think they, he and rotten, should openly discuss anything on the board. Very strange, considering he isn't afraid.

He who blinks loses. And capnwow blinked.

I wonder if the phone conversation between them was as civil and cordial and productive as he said. I wonder if capnwow lost his kool. All that self-control he displays on the boards might cover a boiling volcano. It's much easier to write "kool-ly" than to keep kool in a conversation that isn't going quite as you want it to.

I wonder lots of things about capnwow, including whether or not he has any intention of meeting rotten in an SEC or FBI office of rotten's choice. I'd lay odds that it'll nevah 'appen.

Another poster who was good with links was widely -- were you around when he was posting? A one hundred percent supporter he was, and then increasingly less so. He and I got into it a few times (he knew I was working hard on that axis tilt thingy) and though he was maddening with his ability to evade questions, he "engaged" -- but then he split. Same thing with karlspanger and osscout, maybe for different reasons that widely's -- or maybe not, who knows.

I'll give capnwow this much, though: he has staying power. But so do a lot of others, so nothing remarkable there.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, crow!

how'd you do that, 4diddy?

I clicked on the link and couldn't get that post to come up.

Someone must have been thinking ahead and archived it ("and others").

rotten ... have you noticed

that capnwow apparently doesn't want to answer your question (why he started wanting to talk to you and wants to meet face to face with you now, when he ignored you before)?

I've noticed that.

Just wondered if you had.

lmo ...

why on earth do you waste your time and board space arguing with edge? His role is to divert attention, and anyone who lets himself become engaged helps him along. That he comes across as transparent and a joke doesn't seem to bother him at all, but that's not surprising. Just let him rattle on and see where it takes him.

Besides, capndagoodWOW's "situation" vis a vis rotten (and those authorities he's in such close contact with, so helpful to, as he provides "heretofor" unknown evidence, or whatever it was) is far more interesting.

I'll say this ... I for one wouldn't try to con (put one over on) rotten, any more than I'd have tried to con blkhoc or stk.

Remember the loose lugnuts? More than lugnuts are (on the) loose!

Dear Capnmike:

Here follows the question rotten asked you:

"I do have one question for you. What was the reason that all of a sudden you want to email me, call me and have a face to face meeting?"

He did not ask whether or not you'd received acknowledgment of whatever you sent the FBI or for yet another of your "views." It was a very simple question. Really, it was.

Why won't you just answer it?

As for leaving "it" off the internet chat rooms, it was you who opened "it" up on this internet chat room.

As I noted in my previous post, it really isn't smart to feint and parry, to play games (word or otherwise) with rotten.

More or less (mostly less) cordially,

Sanddollar

cc: the world at large

I just love it ...

when some people cut right to the chase.

Who what when where how and why.

Will be very interesting to see how forthcoming you are tomorrow, capn. If I were you, I wouldn't try to feint and parry with rotten. Prolly won't work.

michael, I am so impressed!

You read inpharma! (and have read it regularly for oh just a very long time, I assume)

And now the "international aspect" of cdex and its remarkable Valimed is a GROWING interest for you!

Oh WOW ! A little tiny walnut is about to sink roots and because of fertilizer provided by BAXA it's no doubt and inevitably going to GROW into a mighty oak, towering above a veritable jungle of kudzu.

Absolutely no slur on BAXA -- they are good at what they do. But you?

I have duly considered many of you links, past and present and -- all things considered -- I consider you a running joke.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ps, crow ... yup, and poor old wade was really grasping at straws way back then. Imagine, taking your "case" to a public chat room!

4diddy ...

we had lunch in DCA. A really nice guy, and pretty good with a camera, too!

au contraire, crow ...

these are the closest to the truth as we're likely to get for now.

maybe ~kidd and jonca and thespaceman will write "the book" together. And "others" can write the post script.

diddy ...

you should know better than to ask capnwow any direct, simple questions and expect a direct, simple answer!

btw ... back to that poster poteet "confided" in back when -- assuming we're thinking of the same person, someone who'd had considerable experience with the authorities -- were you in touch with him?

right on, lmo ...

best to archive your post in case "someone" deems it untoward and decides it shouldn't be read.

capnwow ...

rottenapple, our telephone conversation just ended and I thank you very much for your time and openess.

As we discussed, I will contact the SEC (and FBI via their Web-based tip line) indicating you hold heretofor undisclosed evidence that may be related to Loch Harris litigation.

Just a tad disingenuous, capn. "I thank you very much for ... etc." I wonder if rotten found you to be as "open" as you found him. Your style is not "open" at all. You speak only when you think you've holding all the cards or have found a trump -- witness your heavy duty "research" into BioProgress and attempts to "lay it all out" by "uncovering" a cabal to explain the "bashers" and their efforts to bring LH down. Really was funny, that, though. At least to me. Pathetic, but funny.

btw ... why are you going to use a web-based hot line to tip the FBI off to "heretofor undisclosed evidence"? Why don't you contact a real live person? Surely you've been in regular and intimate contact with a real live person within the FBI? I mean, a man like you, held in such high esteem by authorities who are working on this complicated story, would be in close touch with a real live FBI person, wouldn't he?

And just for the record, to clarify (which I'm sure you're anxious to do): exactly what is this "Loch Harris litigation" you keep mentioning? You undoubtedly know the old communications maxim, mike: making yourself understood means making sure you're not misunderstood. So what's that "litigation"? Just keep it simple and I'm sure the less intellectually gifted among your readers will understand.

It was inevitable and entirely predictable that you would make an overture to rotten, michael. If you doubt that, re-read your Psych 101 textbook. If you've misplaced yours, try googling. Or maybe you can find an old copy for sale on ebay.

So sorry if this doesn't show you the respect and deference you feel you're entitled to, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

This is better than high noon in some lonesome dusty town!

btw, capn ... if you don't want to send anything to rotten, you can e-mail me. Imorovan has my address (so do the FBI and SEC) and he has my permission to forward it to you.

rotten ... I imagine there's an SEC office in DC ... maybe capndagoodwow can travel all the way up there to meet you. He's obviosuly capable of trekking all the way cross country for a Vegas show, after all.

btw, what "litigation" are you talking about, capn, the status of which [issue] is now different?

crow & rotten ...

did anyone ever see a recorded sale of daBeez's (and others') registered-to-sells?

not to my knowledge.

and malcbaby is sec-savvy (so he boasted as p1234 or whatever).

he'd surely know how to beat the (legal) system and tell his confreres how it's done. Things you don't learn in law school, I imagine.

Odd, diddy, that you mention wade's singular post. I was thinking about that the other day. Did you know he "confided" in another poster at the time of it?

Inet ... seems you'd better get your basic facts straight, like who's who, before you try to act like a know it all.

Also, inet ... please to tell rio I've looked for him and his 'lectric yellow shirt every time I've been at Yanni's over the years. We had such a nice luncheon. Too bad I wasn't buying what he had to sell.

oh I think you're very wrong, "edgy" ...

capndagood has made himself very well known over several years, to crow and many of the rest of us.

Just as you have made yourself very well known to one and all.