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.
Attacking your claim "protected" his claim in no way whatsoever.
I didn't say anything about his claim at all, I only talked about yours.
Sorry you're butthurt. Maybe next time don't pretend that you "know what you're talking about" when you make your own outlandish claim reply.
And no, George has never said that FINRA has everything they needed. He only commented on stuff from the Transfer Agent specifically.
Your claim that they have everything, period, is entirely fabricated. It's bullshit. You are lying. George has never said that.
Omitting the "from the Transfer Agent" part entirely changes the context.
It is straight-up lying about what George has said.
I didn't realize I have to give an opinion on every single post on this board. Where can I read the information informing me of my obligation, I must have forgotten all about it.
By the way, you said he didn't know what he was talking about with his 90% chance and gave your own 90% chance, as if to imply that you did know what you were talking about.
Hence my challenge to you.
Because I knew you were full of shit but trying to talk a big game.
And then you summarized it with "KEY WORDS « FINRA received everything they needed.. »"
You intentionally left out the Transfer Agent bit, again, as if that part did not matter, but that entirely changes the meaning and implies that everything from everywhere has been given.
Which George has never said.
Again, I did not make any judgment whatsoever on his claim.
Sorry you're butthurt, but I in no way "protected him".
I simply didn't say anything about his claim at all. I just called out yours as unsupported bullshit, which is true.
from the Transfer Agent
Leaving that part out implies an entirely different meaning - that everything in all aspects has been given.
But that is not what George has said.
How am I protecting his statement when I have not even commented on it?
All I did was call out your bullshit unsupported claim that there is a 90% chance of processing.
There is no judgment there on any other things, either positive or negative.
No, he did not.
He only said everything from the Transfer Agent specifically. But that's only one angle to the goings-on.
"Didn’t George tweet that finra confirmed it had everything?"
I made no claim as to his statement. You are making shit up.
Gee, a lying pumper, imagine that.
Casting doubt, rightfully, on an unsupported positive assertion is not protecting negative ones.
I don't think he ever said that.
He said everything from the Transfer Agent.
But that's only part of "all" that would be needed.
"As per George FINRA has all the documents needed for the ticker name change…. "
But they absolutely can "not process" if they decide so.
Potayto, potahto, it's the same exact thing as denying just a different phrase for it.
"THEY CANNOT DENY."
What facts are you basing that on?
So we have an idea of the level of your expertise in knowing what you're talking about here.
"You don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s the opposite 90%+ chance it gets approved "
Zoom in on the common address the dude uses to link them.
Look it up. It's not an office. It's a UPS Store. They receive mail for multiple people and businesses. It doesn't mean they are all merging with one another. They just pick up their mail at the same place.
https://locations.theupsstore.com/fl/delray-beach/455-ne-5th-ave
Bullshit.
Prove it.
Oh, that's right, you can't. Or else you would.
Bullshit. You have no proof whatsoever of that and are just pulling it out of your ass.
"There is a second round of share reductions which you keep leaving out. Just like SRNW, this will get half OS cancelled."
It doesn't work because that is just a picture.
The link in the actual document is this: https://lautorite.qc.ca/fileadmin/lautorite/bulletin/2022/vol19no17/vol19no17_2.pdf
"George spent 50k on lawyer and that is telling. "
Even more telling is that the majority of parties he was trying cancel the shares of were dismissed.
A good bunch of that $50k was just wasted.
So much for the "George wouldn't spend the money if he didn't know he would succeed" theory.
Just imagine being a grown ass man whining about board message folk while fantasizing about their home lives.
When the DD all stems from "look at their same address!" and it turns out to be a UPS Store I tend to be quite cynical of what else comes from it.
Propy and George use the same UPS Store for a mailing address?
Only an idiot jumps to the conclusion that they must be merging with no evidence other than that.
"You swore under oath to Judge Susan Johnson in your Affidavit to support your expedited Motion to Cancel Shares that a merger was "pending." Those are your words. Not mine. Your tweet from your personal account this morning contradicts your Affidavit. And I have many screen shots of it. "
I'm not sure how those could be George's words when the word "merger" never even appears in the document. Maybe you need to re-read it.
You're saying George is intentionally manipulating his shareholders? Wow.
"I personally think GS. Is weeding out weak hands before the ticker change then on to the merger."
"Name and ticker change coming Friday. "
Do you have any proof of that whatsoever, or are you just making crap up?
No hearing tomorrow. No opposition ever filed so cancellations are granted.
You are lying.
"FINRA responded with approval "soon.""
They only said they would have a response soon, they did not say whether it will be approval.
FINRA has just informed $GVSI that we expect a response to the application for a name and symbol change "soon".
— American Blockchain Corporation (@OTCpinkGVSI) November 1, 2023
So did you find any links where I misrepresented statements and built fake strawman arguments like you claimed? You've had the entire weekend plus ALL of Monday to find any. If not, sadly I will have to file you in the liar column.
Where does one confirm the "fact" of millions and millions of air shares?
Being a "fact" it is easily verifiable, right? So where does one go to confirm it?
Should be an easy question to answer, what with being a "fact" and all.
Actually it's logic that I think that, not whether I hold shares or not.
He was already in the process of examining records for any additional shares to cancel and that was 10 months ago. You really think he's still poring over records almost a year later? I highly doubt it.
Additionally, the court document that revealed the "acquisition of an asset of the Company" also mentioned that it was being held up pending completion of the current share cancellations. It doesn't make sense that there would just be another batch of cancellation attempts to follow and muddy the share structure for months yet again.
My guess is the cancellations are done when this initial batch is finally resolved to its completion.
Again, if there is further information contrary to that, great. Let's hear it.
The problem is George never seemed to do any follow-up whatsoever with that. Did he ever even mention it again after the single January tweet where he was already in the process of examining the records?
It is now 10 months later. I'm starting to suspect he didn't find any additional that might be cancelled. I'm certainly open to correction if anyone has any verifiable further information.
$GVSI is preparing an initial court action to cancel over 294 million shares. Records are being examined to determine how many additional shares might be cancelled.
— George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC (@GeorgeASharp) January 14, 2023
When have I ever "ran from my position"?
What is so difficult to understand about the idea of not having seen any clear evidence that George has overcome the problem of the missing filings?
Have you seen any evidence that George has overcome the problem? Maybe I missed it - then please share, why don't you?
We shall see...
I do not know for a fact whether they will or they won't. That's why I've never stated for a fact whether they will or won't. Even though you have lied and said that I have.
But I have not seen any clear evidence to indicate that the missing filing problem has been overcome.
And if the missing filing problem has not been overcome then I don't see why FINRA would change their decision.
By all means, if you have any proof of why FINRA would disregard their own reasoning for the prior denial then please present it.
Has there been any evidence presented to indicate that George has overcome the problem of the missing filings that were the problem last time?
I haven't seen any, maybe you have? By all means, please share with everyone any lovely proof you have that the filing issue has been solved.
All I can think of is the "deal" that George said he struck with the SEC when he withdrew the appeal of former management.
An act which in itself indicates that this was still an ongoing issue - it did not magically melt away along with prior management as some try to pretend.
However if that SEC deal did in fact solve the very large problem with FINRA then it needs to have been reported as a Material Event, IMO. But it never was.
Ignore the existential threat of the missing filings at your own peril.
No one is worried about your stupid little attempt at distraction with a pretend name confusion issue being a non-issue.
Last management's attempt at corporate actions was thwarted solely on the basis of the six missing filings. And those filings are still missing to this day.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that the name American Blockchain does not pose a problem for FINRA, but it does not matter.
It's the missing filings that matter. They are why the last attempt failed.
Goodness, look at you lying.
I wasn't the one that brought it up. I replied to it. This was literally from just a handful of posts down and was posted by The Whale - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173160731
You even replied to the post yourself - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173160733
I have no idea why you are even attempting to pretend this is something fake and embarrassing for me. It wasn't my claim, I was the one that shot it down in fact.
And you know this, you witnessed it all yourself.
Wow, you are desperate for anything to try to detract from my credibility. To the point of embarrassing yourself now. I mean, should we at least blame some kind of memory problem for your issue tonight? Or are you just drinking that heavily these days?
I call out lies and the liars that tell them.
How does that make me "desperate"?
It's fun, actually.
I didn't say that any were publicly traded. But one of the claims was that American Blockchain was not reserved with any state but Nevada so there can be no confusion leading to a FINRA denial. The problem with that is that there are actually 3 dozen variations of American Blockchain registered in 18 states. Plus 2 in Canada....
Again, I am not claiming this is an issue with FINRA. Just pointing out that the claim of "there is no FINRA issue because there are no other companies with a similar name" is bogus.