Frank, it's not a question of patience. You claim to have such a great case. You haven't introduced any new information here for weeks, and you continue to post the same claims, accusations, and spam. The terms of your $2.00 share purchase haven't changed in two years. What are you waiting for? Perhaps you're waiting to see if the share price goes up and they'll be worth more than you paid. Wouldn't it be a riot if you finally filed, then the share price spiked? Maybe you could prevail and all you'd get would be your $2.00, while the rest of us sell on the open market at $3.00+!

You have been asked numerous direct questions, but you never answer any of them. This is just another one to add to the list.

Frank, do yo ever DO anything, or do you just post the same garbage all the time? If you're going to sue someone, please do it and move on. If you're not, quit talking about it.

McBride may have made some mistakes, but you make him look really good.

Good bye

Frank, how could you know who is reporting TOS violations? I thought you had been relieved of your visibility to this function.

BTW, I have reported a few, and I have not been encouraged to do so by McBride or anyone else. In fact, I'm following the direction I learned from you!

We have been reading the same exact issues for weeks. It shouldn't take more than a few moments to post them yet again.

I applaud Matt for inviting the opportunity and hopefully, letting everyone move on afterward. Regardless of the questions, answers, or lack thereof, the result should be that these topics can be dropped. Maybe they're dropped because McBride can't or won't answer, and maybe they'll be dropped because people don't like the responses, but regardless, when all is said and done, there shouldn't be a reason to rehash it again.

The only exception I can imagine, would be an opportunity for McBride to compile a similar list of questions or issues to be addressed by Frank. Seems only fair that this should work both ways, and it's quite apparent that Frank is not without guilt in many areas. If that happens, maybe we can look forward to a series of new discussions. Sure would be refreshing. This thread has long since become a joke.

Just for grins, I decided to review the TOS rules once again. They address much of what we have seen recently pretty well.
Unfortuntely, if we all report violations as they occur, Shamus, Rich, and ultimately Matt, will be innundated with posts to review, although if we enforce an environment of stricter rules, maybe some of the violations will cease. Here are a couple of exerpts which seem particularly relevant:

Spam is defined as:

Continually posting the same or similar information;


A Personal Attack is defined as:

Posting harassing or otherwise objectional content on another poster;
Calling another poster names or being vulgar;
Not staying on topic with the current investment discussion, but instead focusing on an individual poster;

Not to worry Dan. The patrol car wasn't really stolen. You can just deduct it's value from the forthcoming settlement.

Tonyeight, no need for you to post links to examples. You'd probably crash the server due to excessive volume.

Excellent post.

You're "lightly armed", I'll give you that.

BTW, I'm assuming that since I used a direct quote, it shouldn't be a TOS violation.

Zagdad, I share some of your concerns about Shamus, although possibly to a lesser extent. The thing we need (IMO) is a moderator who is capable of being fair, regardless of their personal views. There was a time when FG would welcome posts that were contrary to his views, as long as they were presented in a manner which was consistent with the TOS.

Personally, I respect his willingness to step forward and give it a shot. I'm willing to give it a chance.

If you want to reach FG, you may want to try RB. He appears to be receiving a well deserved warm welcome over there.

Thanks for the compliment Dan, but I'm unwilling to do it. My schedule will likely change significantly in the near future, and I'll no longer have the time I do today.

I hope someone will be able to step up soon. Matt has been kind enough to provide us with this forum. He shouldn't be expected to baby-sit us when we're not capable of maintaining a reasonable decorum.

BTW Matt, I'd like to thank you for restoring some of my posts as well.

I'm not fond of his practice of posting here either, but it seems pretty hypocritical to devote a message board to the life and times of Rich McBride and the company he built, yet attempt to prevent him from participating.

Hey Frank, now I know why you're attempting to try your suit on a message board. Real courts won't let you delete direct questions!

Even you said it was for testing. You must really like it if you're willing to steal it. We have all seen where McBride has asked you to return it or pay for it. That now appears about as likely as your winning a six figure settlement. Do you still wonder why people won't join your cause?

What does that have to do with your stealing a SecureView?

You're kidding, right?

Someone is kind enough to lend you a product for testing, then you take it upon yourself to dictate the terms of payment (or lack thereof)?

I think I'll try that next time I test drive a new car. Sounds like blatant theft to me.

EXCELLENT POST, Dan. eom

We're not talking about ASTN, nor are we discussing insurance or anyone who has been found guilty of anything.
If you're so convinced of the merits of a case against SEVU or McBride, I'm sure you can find an attorney to represent you. All I'm saying is that I don't think that new investors are likely to get too worked up over any of this. Companies are sued every day. Some prevail, some lose, and far more settle or are dismissed. SEVU has lawyers too. McBride and the company have been under a microscope for many months, if not longer. Lots of allegations and a reported lengthy investigation by the SEC, but no findings have been reported to date and the stock is still trading.

I'm not defending McBride, and I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I personally don't have enough facts to believe that suit could succeed or that doing so would be in my best interest since I plan to continue to hold stock.

People sue for lots of reasons. Some have clearly been damaged. Some do it out of emotion, ego, immaturity, or just plain stupidity. Some even spend a couple hundred dollars to file, in hopes of a quick settlement (not necessarily a bad strategy in some cases).

FG and I have debated this topic at length, and we're polar opposite on the subject as it relates to SEVU. I obviously believe I'm right, just as FG believes he is right. For all I know, we may both be right or wrong. Time will tell, I hope. One thing you'll get to know about me: I'll vigorously debate lots of things. I respect the opinions of others, and I try to remain objective, but I've got pretty strong opinions about things. Securities Law isn't even close to my area of expertise, but when I look at the big picture regarding SEVU, I don't think filing suit would be productive, nor do I believe new investors would be concerned at this point.

They also don't take cases if it's going to cost their firm $20K to represent the interest of the Plaintiff. Also, there are laws of incorporation that protect personal assets of employees.

Anyone can file suit, and it's all too easy to find a hungry lawyer, but neither action proves guilt.

Therein lies the problem.

Sure nice to see you back!

I don't disagree with you, although if it's true that the insiders are working for equity, rather than salary as has been claimed, there is incentive value by offering it to them.

Also, if this happened when the share price was in the twenty cent range, external sources of funding may not have wanted to touch it, particularly with SEVUs track record.

I'd rather see it funded externally as well, but I can understand why they may have done it this way. The problem is, we don't know anything about the details, so all we're doing is speculating. Makes it pretty hard.

Intelligent investors know how few Class Action suits ever make it to trial, much less prevail. Most people also realize that anyone can file suit, but the existance of a suit doesn't prove guilt.

I was just reading through the past few posts, and something occurred to me. I think we all know that the majority of people reading this board probably don’t own shares in SEVU. There are quite a few agendas represented here, although I doubt the sum total of shares owned by all of us is significant. The part I find interesting is that many who post here spend so much time trying to discredit McBride and/or SeaView, yet the best they can do is continue to rehash ancient history and topics that have nothing to do with the company. The good news is that the company is receiving quite a bit of favorable exposure. If a new investor discovers the company, they will likely do their research which will reveal a very inexpensive stock in a company who is finally shipping their mainstream product. They may also question the recent issuance of additional shares, although the new investor may not be as upset about the dilution we have all experienced, as the new investor is benefiting from the resulting depressed share price.

My assumption for the reasons for the PP remains that I think it was the best solution when faced with production delays or disappointing sales at a time when the company simply had no money. Many here would argue the usual claims and accusations we have heard so many times, but no one with enough money to make a difference is likely to read this junk anyway. Even if they did, McBride isn’t an officer of the company, so most objective people would probably consider it and dismiss it as irrelevant.

I discovered this company after reading a very small ad in a boating magazine. I checked out the website and ordered an underwater camera and bought some stock. The company appeared to have lots of potential and the share price was cheap. As SecureView gains exposure, I expect others to do the same. I hope so, anyway.

I love the disclaimer! Too funny.

I agree with you about FG, particularly during recent weeks, but in the scheme of things, it seems easier to consider the source when reading his posts than try to create a new forum.

I don't see the need for a new board.

This was a "new board" at one time, when the mindless drivel of Raging BS forced many to a breaking point. I'm a very outspoken critic of FG since his overnight change of heart, although I still respect his historical knowledge of the company. Personally, I don't believe he's objective on the subject, although I didn't think he was very objective before, either. Either way, with very few exceptions, he does manage to focus on the issues at hand. Whether I/we agree with him or not, he usually delivers his message in a professional manner, and I think he's a valuable contributor. In the end, I'm not one to change something just because I don't agree with all of the players.

I also think it's important to remember where IHub is today, and compare it to the past. We are no longer inundated with constant irrelevant crap from Printmail, Ken Cook, and others. Some of our arguments may be a burden for Matt to have to referee, although he certainly does it very well. I used to wish for an "Ignore" option, although there is no one around anymore whom I'd choose to ignore anyway. We have a good PM function and TOS rules that work pretty well. I'd rather not see FG and Shamus with the ability to delete/hide posts, although they don't abuse it, so it's no big deal.

I guess if someone wants to initiate a new board, I'll certainly check it out, but personally, I don't see the need.

Just my thoughts.

A question for Matt:

Is it now okay for us to post completely unsubstantiated claims, accusations, and the like, as long as we call it "our belief" or "our opinion"?

No need to respond Matt. Most of us know the answer.

AMERICA: A Tribute to Heroes

Carolyn, I'm glad to see you have this on TV in your bar. Truly amazing!!!

When I typed that post, I expected even you to recognize the absurdity of the statement. Instead, you reinforce it! Talk about jumping to conclusions!!! I can't speak for the rest of the professional community, but in my experience, sharing something with others at work has never meant I'm running the company.

I don't particularly care if you delete my posts. I just feel sorry for Matt, as he has to waste so much time babysitting a board that can't manage itself.

BTW, thanks for granting me permission to laugh at you. I was a little worried about that.

I'm not going to engage in a meaningless debate with you. It's not worth what little time it would take, nor is it an appropriate use of this board (regardless of what an ex-chairman may do).

Frank, maybe you should stop whining long enough to read some of your own posts. This one is even more amusing than most. Do you honestly believe that sharing a message board post with co-workers means he's running the company?

No wonder your investment advice is laughed at by so many.

That's an easy one Frank! Because some people on this board are already lost!

I love the "dull hacksaw".

Part of the challenge is that there isn't just an "over there". The people involved in the recent attacks had been living and learning here for years. That seems so different from a traditional kamikaze pilot. These guys spent years, TRAINING for their suicide!

This is a VERY difficult war.

Frank not only deletes messages, but he has also taken it upon himself to determine who may be publicly attacked. Seems pretty convenient, don't you think?

I don't doubt that an A@P connection would likely weaken a case, although if it was a prominent factor before, it does make one wonder how strong the case really is. If it wasn't a prominent factor, there shouldn't be a need to extend the dates.

I agree with you. I just don't know how to proceed. The challenge as I see it is that we're fighting people with such a deep conviction in their beliefs that they'll willingly sacrifice their own lives, rather than fighting a "traditional" war by trying to outlast the opposition. If I'm so screwed up as to decide to intentionally drive my car into a crowd of people, there's nothing anyone can do to prevent it. It's not realistic to take away everyone's car, just as it's not realistic to believe that we'll no longer fly on commercial airlines. Even with this mornings announced ban on air traffic within three miles of large gatherings (sporting events, etc.), what will it really accomplish? It will alter certain routes for law abiding planes, but if someone wants to crash a plane into a stadium, what will it prevent? Someone can legally fly within three miles, then cross the barrier and crash into the event. It would take a matter of seconds, and there's no way to defend it.

Sorry if I sound like I have such a defeatest attitude. That's really not the case. As I said before, I'm just trying to get my mind around it.

Nice, light discussion during my morning drink, huh?

Good morning Frank!

It's interesting that you can be so quick to ask people to back up their comments with facts (ref: post 12447, among others), yet you don't hesitate suggesting why the suit against SEVU may be delayed. Do you have any "facts" to support that one?

Good morning Carolyn. Yes, I agree with you about last night's speech. I'm still trying to get my brain around the whole situation, but it's not working. Very ugly stuff.

Well, I'm going to bed. Sleep, and most other things, are much more important than waiting for FG to fail to reply to direct questions. He has responded four times to posts from others during the past three hours (since I posted three pretty easily understood questions), so I have a hard time believing he hasn't seen the messages. I'll go to bed and give him time to research or fabricate a reply. Good night all.

M.

Francois, I couldn't agree with you more!

While we're on the subject of rebuttals, rather than personal attacks, you claim to be filing suit against either McBride or SEVU (possibly both). I have repeatedly asked you to simply tell us the charges of the suit, but you refuse to answer. That's not exactly confidential information, as I believe it's impossible to sue any person or entity without informing them of the charges. As soon as they're filed, they become public information. Since you're making threats or comments about forthcoming subpoenas, you must have filed by now, so there shouldn't be a secret. You have even asked us to participate in your endeavor, yet you don't seem to believe in your case strongly enough to tell us the grounds of your action. Gee, I wonder why we're not lined up to fund your efforts!

This isn't a hard question Frank, nor is it a "personal attack" (BFD). What are the charges you have supposedly filed against Richard McBride and/or Seaview Video Technology?