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.
Hopefully PR this week will be about merger and not reason for adding 13M shares, we have already accepted that.
TPL also posted he thought CCMJ was done so could be some selling from this post.
Why would retail sell now, probably for a loss, with a R/M announcement supposed to be coming soon. That makes even less sense.
Man, I got a bad feeling here...come on Randy, answer the phone buddy.
Why would company dump now when shares should be worth much more either after R/M or as part of R/M buyout.
Folks, this makes no sense.
IR doesn't appear to be answering his phone isn't helping right now.
I believe he said they were taking calls from new interested parties in merging.
Plus if news is announced in advance, and does actually hit, the old sell on news syndrom hits and can stall any big runs.
I prefer no warnings of news so that chances are more likely for a hard run since no one is playing the news.rumor.
Of course news of a huge R/M partner should get nice legs and run irregardless
IMHO BWTFDIK!
Not sure I like the fact that new shares were dropped this close to completing merger. Doesn't make sense. R/M candidate could have gotten them direct from company as part of buyout. And why would any insider sell this close to deal completion? Desn't make sense.
I was refering to how easy it has been for us (me) to get filled on the bid. If new shares were being sold this explains it. Until new share count was posted, I thought MM's were doing there usual manipulations when they filled me on the bid earlier today.
Explains why MM's are filling buys on the bid.
I doubt CEO will sale his entire holdings to R/M candiate because he will want to continue to hold a substantial position in his company after the R/M to benefit from the deal and the growth in the future.
So maybe we get lucky and R/M candidate gets chunk of shares from company but agrees to buy millions of shares on the open market to get majority interest. This reduces float significantly and raises PPS right out the gate.
Just speculating here but.....
IMHO BWTFDIK!
I have been happy about most of the news the good doctor has put out......it's the dilution into the news that doesn't sit so well...LMAO.
Sorry, couldn't resist that.
IMHO BWTFDIK!
Check your email
Check your PM I have sent it a third time.
You said, "This fellow investor told me that Goeree wanted to speak to me about my dealings with Daniel and Paul."
To me that post sounded like Goeree reached out to you.
And I was wondering why. What was is his motive?
IMHO BWTFDIK!
WTF are you talking about? I just said his silence seems to indicate his attorneys have advised him not to publish the documents.
"if nupe has turned over the documents to his attorney and his attorney finds that while inspecting this info that there is in fact a suspected/alleged securities crime(s) committed he, as a legal entity of the courts, has to turn over this info to the proper authorities else he would be a conspirator to the suspected/alleged crime(s),...
"
Now this is complete speculation on your part. Have you seen the documents? Can you prove to me abcdefg's allegations are true and not just a tainted view of whats going on here based upon impressions made by Goeree to him? FWIW, I can put a completely different picture on the "facts" abcdefg has outlined but wouldn't dare with the current sentiment here, one of a witch hunt seeking vengence for our losses. I haven't seen any damning proof against AQUI yet other than the idiotic position they took to shut us out and provide us with no updates. If you check my posts you will see I have been very vocal about this.
Show me where my post is in my own self interest! I get it, you can speculate and make as many unsubstantiated claims as you want, thats OK, but anyone who posts their opinion and it isn't in line with you, then you attack. I have been very critical of the company in the past and I continue to be so, but I am still an investor and have a right to post my opinions. But I refuse to join your witch hunt without proof of illegal activities.
I'll ask again, WTF is Goeree's motive for reaching out to abcdefg?
IMHO BWTFDIK!
Or its not in his clients best interest to risk law suit posting private conversations, emails, and documents from a third party.
Actually none of your choices make sense as NUPE stated he was only going to show them to his attorney and make sure he wouldn't get into trouble posting them. His silence gives a pretty good idea what the answer was.
I don't believe he ever said he was turning them over to his attorney for legal recourse, just to see if he could publically post them.
Posted by: nupe Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:06:57 AM
In reply to: abcdefg who wrote msg# 76872 Post # of 77227
I am confirming that I have the documents. I am speaking with my attorney ensure that posting the material does not put me at legal risk. I have also spoken with abcdefg via telephone. Stay tuned for more info.
IMHO BWTFDIK!
NUPE's silence tells me his attorney has probably advised him to NOT post the information and to refrain from even discussing the company on our little thread.
No kidding.
It is my opinion that Goeree is the key here and right now abcdefg is the only one to have talked to him.
Believe me, I want to but NUPE hasn't posted anything yet. I am wondering if his attorney advised against it.
So in your conversations with Goeree, he never said what he was upset about? He shares all this "info" about shell merger not done but never mentions what his objectives are? That seems odd.....
I would really like to know his motives with you, especially since he reached out to you. Might clear up some things IMO.
Like everyone here, I would like answers and it seems the key player here, Goeree, has an axe to grind.
I would like to know what it is. Might clear up a lot of things!
Thanks for your time.
I would like to know what Goeree's motive is here.
Please shed some light on this from your conversations.
EDS text interviews, can anyone repost them please...thx
Kind of hard to update ibox with Daniel's misguided code of silence in place. No way to confirm any of it one way or the other.
Thanks Dave.
Actually I have received far more PM's than public responses agreeing with my thoughts. It would have taken less than 15 minutes to read my earlier posts and seen that I wasn't claiming they needed to do a better job enforcing TOU. Rather, I was suggesting they tweek it a tad to eliminate some of the extreme posters.
My mistake was thinking I had a good idea about making posting on "investment" forums only for investors.
Yes TOU has been the same for years. Ever wonder what happened to Ragingbull and Silicon Investor from its heyday? FWIW, I was one of the first to leave SI for RB when it was launched, just like with IHUB. People got tired of threads being bogged down by pumpers and bashers and it became increasingly difficult to have open discussions about your investments. I have been around a long time, and even with my hiatus from trading, this hasn't changed. I thought IHubs introduction of moderators was a great improvement for these forums. I was just offering my opinion to what could make it even better.
Even though many seem to agree with me about the need for improvement, IHub has made their position clear and I accept it.
IMHO BWTFDIK!
LMAO, true.
I stopped trading for years and just recently started again. You would have seen this when you pulled up my profile but I guess you just wanted to discredit me or you wouldn't have posted this.
Forgive me for trying to make a suggestion to Ihub on their question thread. Thought that was what it was for, my mistake.
Funny how DaSilva is labeled the fall guy yet all 4 guys were involved in everything. And don't forget everything DaSilva was supposedly lying about was confirmed by Daniel in the last EDS interview. And don't kid yourself that Daniel was unaware of every peice of information Dasilva was putting out.
In my book Daniel is the fall guy. He is just as guilty, if not more so than DaSilva, then hid behind silence while our investment dwindled. Daniel stopped the news flow not DaSilva. It was Daniels arrogance that ticked alot of people off, and it was Daniel who let this ship start its descent into the abyss without so much as a peep as to what was going on. Like Doog said, honest, open updates from company (even bad ones) would have at least allowed investors to make decisions on whether to ride it out or cut their losses. He chose the cowards way and shut us all out creating panic.
I do not believe for a minute we were scammed, we just bet on the wrong horse because Daniel, our jockey, didn't know how to ride a horse. His arrogance is killing us. Come on Daniel, be a man and step up with a long update. You have a fiduciary responsibility to keep your shareholders informed. Swallow your pride, admit your mistakes and failures here, and let us know what you are doing to salvage your dream, our company.
IMHO BWTFDIK!
I was suggesting that if Ihub made it a TOS violation to post to da moon statements, then these posts could be removed from boards by moderators. If a poster has a history of making these posts, then after repeated violations they could have their posting privelages suspended for a period of time.
Either make posts on topic, good or bad, or have them removed as TOS violations. If your only purpose on Ihub is to make posts discrediting companies with no verifiable information but vague statements, make it a violation as well.
I thought it made sense but apparently there aren't to many out there that feel the same way.
Ihub has made their position clear so there is no point in duscussing this further anyway IMO.
IMHO BWTFDIK!
Its not an oxymoron if you allow threads for specific companies then try to limit disussion to those with a common interest in that specific company. Especially if the site is called Investorshub. I would like to go to a thread for ABC Inc and have a dialog with other investors, where we can share information (good and bad) without having to filter out the to da moons posts and the negative posts by individuals with no vested interest. I thought I had some good suggestions which is why I posted here.
I bet every poster in this room can give you a list of a dozen people who have histories of hyping without contibuting information to a thread. They can give you just as many names of posters with no history of ever owning any stocks, particularly those they post about.
I thought it would be nice to have these two extremes filtered out to allow those of us using these threads to share information on cleaner boards.
Sorry, don't want to get into a discussion on something when you have made it quite clear what your position is. Just wanted you to know why I opened this can of worms...lol
IMHO BWTFDIK!
DaSilva was covered by the forward looking statement at the bottom of all the PR's protecting him.
But, they are not covered by the text interviews given to EDS by DaSilva and Sauve. I do not recall them having the forward looking statement in them.
CVan anyone post the two text interviews done by EDS?
Silly me for not saving them but at the time I didn't think I needed to.
IMHO BWTFDIK!
I believe the bottle was at the last investors meeting, the one that began our demise.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe some investors got new bottles in mail as well.
Good point but I was stating those who have no recent history (or any history at all) of ever owning a stock and all of their posts are negative, their agenda is clear IMO.
And posters who hype its simple, make to da moon and other clearly hype post a TOS violation and continual posting of these hypes will result in posting privelages suspended.
Seems simple to me but I am obviously missing something with the responses i am getting.
IMHO BWTFDIK!
You are absolutely correct. My question is why an effort isn't made to keep the boards cleaner as an open forum and try to screen out those posters that have private agendas.
Not to dispute anything Doog said, but if they have no molds then how could they have provided samples of new bottle?
Seriously, someone explain what I am missing here. Was it a mock up done and Aquagold never actually purchased the mold?
TIA
You cant identify "paid bashers" but you can somewhat detrmine a posters agenda from their history. Basher or touter!
From a political stand point, everyone has an interest in their candidates. Would you want some clown in California calling you every night to tell you the candidate for your state representative in Iowa beats his spouse when there is absolutely no proof he has ever done this. We have no way to know what the disgruntled person in California's agenda is, maybe he was originally from your state and your candidate beat out his uncle in a previous election, or maybe he is unemployed and gets his jollies making things up and trying to disrupt other state elections. There is no way to know this but if he is calling thousands of voters with the claim your canidate is a spouse abuser he can have an adverse effect on the election. If we can track his calls and have the ability to stop him from continuing, should he be stopped?
Again, I never said only positive posts should be allowed. Threads for specific companies should be set up for open discussions on the good and bad of each specific company. For every to the moon post on a thread there is an equal amount of unsubstantiated negative posts.
Looking at posters histories gives you the ability to get a pretty good idea to their agenda. Ihub should be able to adapt their TOS rules to clean up both sides of the abuse to try and make the threads more sharing of information with less touting and bashing for personal gains.
I didn't say that, read it again. If there is bad information out there on a company it will find its way to a board.
Personally, I think they should clean up the pumpers to. For example if someone reports a poster and their history shows them to post these "to the moon!" type posts repeatedly, then they should be suspended as well.
This is supposed to be an investors forum and cleaning up those posters on the far ends of each side should be a priority IMHO!
The beauty of being able to pull up peoples history is you can see what type of poster they are. It doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to institute some sort of policy to clean these type posts up.
IMHO BWTFDIK!
Maybe we would like to know what changed his position, good verifiable information or just anger at their lack of support for us after all their promises.
Either way, learning what doog has learned would be additional due diligence for those of us still trying to peice together what went wrong and if there is any hope.
We certainly can't get any information out of the company and those who supposedly had Sauve's ear just last month seem to have disappeared as well.
IMHO BWTFDIK!
If Ihub is an investors forum then threads for specific companies should only be used by investors to discuss information, good and bad, for that specific company.
If a poster has a history of nothing but derogitory posts about companies then his/her agenda must come into question. If a review of their last 100 (or more posts) produces no posts relating to a company they are actually invested in, then this should be a tos violation and they should be banned.
There has got to be a way you can screen paid bashers (and those who don't invest in companies but get their thrills attacking companies) and prevent them from participating in your thread discussions. Make them create their own threads to bash and posts negative comments and any investors who wants to hear their information can go to these threads.
When you allow these people to continually post their negative remarks it can destroy a thread and erode all confidence in a company hurting those investors that still hold shares and believe in this company.
I am not saying threads should be all polyanna but if someone isn't an actual investor then they should be prohibited from posting on boards for specific companies. Trust me, there are plenty of good investors using Ihub and if negative things come up it will find its way to the board. But if you continue to allow these posters with no vested interest in companies to post negatively then eventually Ihub will see fewer and fewer people utilizing it as an investors forum IMHO.
Thanks for hearing my concern and I look forward to your response.
IMHO BWTFDIK!