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.
I disagree. It's not all bias. That is a cynical viewpoint and it is one shared by many but it is not true.
At some level everyone wants to know the truth, regardless of the consequences. It is fair to suggest that there is not a lot of truth to be gleaned, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss everything.
Small bits of the puzzle are discovered, cleaned off, verified, validated and joined to the growing picture. Some of the real pieces come from questionable sources and the verification process is quite involved. Some of the false pieces come from authoritive sources that become questionable based on the pieces they provide. Others are dumped onto the board by the thousand but they are either counterfeit, outdated, or go to another puzzle altogether. The verification process is quite painstaking. Once one has a fair idea of what the picture is, one is quite protective of it. A great deal of work has gone into it's development. It should not be surprising that the defense of the work, against those that would obscure it, would be swift and sometimes savage.
Take your cynical viewpoint and your assumptions of bias and commercial motive and do what you like with them. Just realize that you are not the last word nor have you considered all of the possible vested interests. lol
thetide,
As you have made such a point about this I will offer a response to this post. (Probably not what you want.)
so what's your point Frog/,
...to what ends is your means justifiable?
...is it JUST the debate?
To start with the question is incredibly unfair as it includes numerous 'hidden' assumptions. Assumptions that reside in the mind of the questioner that do not allow for the answer to be judged without bias.
How do YOU define 'means'. Do you mean responding to a demonstrably false premise with clarification? Or do you mean something more ominous, such as 'pouncing' on an unwary victim?
Please explain the question.
Why is it necessary to 'justify' anything. Justification is a process that rationalizes a set of actions to some anticipated goal. The question presupposes that there is an agenda or 'end'. Why is that?
Given that in a 'give and take' environment that seeks to examine a particular subject (DNAG investment) there needs to be differing views and discussions regarding the various understandings of the participants. And given that in order to participate one has at least some interest in extracting valid information. Why is there any need for additional motives outside of the quest for understanding?
It is fair to suggest that many if not most of the participants here are driven by curiosity and a need to learn. is that not enough?
What gives you the capacity and the authority to create your own personal assumptions regarding others and then requiring them to answer questions based on those assumptions?
There is the old unanswerable question based on such a strategy;
Yes or No, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Tell me what 'ends' I have to pick from, based on your assumptions. Then I may be able to justify my 'means'.
regards,
frog
Enough said, I think we can leave it up to the board to decide.
lol, Well I must say you seem intent on starting one today. What's the deal? One of those twenty-eight day things?
ifida that's a lie!
This ALL started from HER comment to something I posted on this board....
This all started when YOU deliberately 'trolled' for her response, based on on-going comments and discussions she has had with chrisbasket all summer regarding deer in his yard. Everyone on the board is aware of her feeling for 'Bambi'. Only an idiot or a bully looking for a fight would have made such a statement.
.
.
All JMO...of course...LOL
IFIDA
Time to go kill bambi...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=8042227
regards,
frog
geob LOL are you serious?
You pretty well have to be a fellon to be in that Data Base ..
So your suggesting that the fellon rate is going to explode ...
what is the CODIS number? .....
for Stored DNA ......
1mil - 2mil - 3mil? .......
And the World population is ......
6bil? ......
Guess what geob.....
DNAWitness is a forensic tool...
Forensic tools are used at crime scenes...
Crime scenes are the result of criminal activity...
Criminals are felons...
Everyone who is NOT a felon does not need to be in the database, because they don't commit crimes...
If they don't commit crimes, DNAWitness won't ever deal with them...
Do you get it?
geob, If you are going to try to maintain any semblance of individuality for this alias you are going to need more than just the silly writing style. You are going to need a separate response strategy.
You both invariably respond to a logical or technical argument with a personal attack. It becomes obvious in very short order.
Try to stay on track. The subject at hand is the the hierarchy of Forensic DNA tests.
You blathered;
Rember we have the #1 DNA test for forensics .......
Now that you have been educated as to DNAWitnesses actual position in the forensic hierarchy, you do not respond with a counter argument backing up your position. Instead you turn to personal attack.
Do you have any valid points to make or should we assume that you are out of ammo?
regards,
frog
I changed nothing, liar.
For the two of you who are unfamiliar with the technology, CODIS is a database that is the repository for the test results. It combines both the DNA identification test data with a worldwide database.
It is the first forensic test that is carried out whenever DNA is found in a crime situation.
If the DNA does not match an entry in the database, then and only then does DNAWitness become viable. If DNAWitness successfully leads to a suspect, his DNA will then be compared to the crime scene DNA using the CODIS protocols, because only those are accepted in a court of law.
Whatever benefits DNAWitness bring to the forensic space, and there are definitely benefits, it will always be a secondary test to the CODIS protocols.
Keep in mind that as the CODIS database grows (and it will always grow, never get smaller) the elbow room for DNAWitness to operate in will get correspondingly smaller.
Dr Dew,
The #1 DNA forensic test in the world is the CODIS DNA identification database.
If you or any one of your other aliases thinks differently, then you are deluded.
If you would care to offer an argument in regards to the merits of your particular choice, then feel free. I'm sure there are many who would love to hear them.
regards,
frog
No you don't!
Rember we have the #1 DNA test for forensics .......
Not a chance.
Dr Dew, Stop it, your killing me. LOL
I can't wait to hear the second chorus, if it is half as funny as the first.
Regarding my number of posts, 900 is it?
I have been a member of this board since July of 2003, that's 27 months today as a matter of fact.
So 900 posts divided by 27 months is about 33 a month...hmm not bad...hardly obsessive.
How long have you been here and how many posts?
Let's see....one month and 77 posts...hmmm better watch it. People might think you have an agenda. lol
regards,
frog
Dr Dew, You are quite a character, are you the comic relief member of the team?
Just a little while ago you threatened possible action against our Miss Scarlet since "evidence was being gathered". lol
As we speak people are gathering evidence about mr frog and a few other people on this board. unless you want to be a co-conspirator I would steer clear.
Two posts later, you contradict yourself with;
Sir what can a court of law do to someone who spoke words on a message board? Are you going to sue him for his opinion?
And then you go on to suggest, ominously;
Now slander is a different story.
Is it really?
slan·der n
1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
Who's reputation is being injured? Your's? Sorry pal, you are not a 'person' on these boards you are an anonymous voice hiding behind an alias. You have no 'reputation' to injure.
You are a blustering blowhard without a lick of common sense.
Now whether that is my opinion, or even if it is a statement injurious to a persons reputation, it is NOT actionable by any stretch of the imagination.
But keep on posting by all means, we sure appreciate the comedy.
regards,
frog
retro, Even as slow as I am, I have not missed this allusion.
I tend to be skeptical regarding the possibility without some corroborating information, as I have a high regard for the intelligence level of your suspect. However, I am open to the possibility that he is merely playing the fool in portraying these aliases in order to mask his identity.
Do you have anything of substance to back up the possibility?
I am considering researching the posting schedules of those involved to see if there is a pattern. Your suspect had a unique schedule based on his residence in Asia. It will be interesting to see if there are any similarities.
If you have something but don't wish to disclose it publicly I can be contacted at 'frogdreaming@gmail.com' if you are so inclined.
regards,
frog
Hey, bag8ger, It's nice to hear from you.
You sound as if your transferring the needs of the boatowner who, while in the minority, has to have a longer boat with which to penetrate the waves.
Isn't it about time for your daily row, out on the lake?
regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet, Forget about trying to respond to all of the canned arguments. They have been developed as misdirection in order to cover up the real motives. As such they are unassailable even though they are nonsense.
No one is hunting to maintain the health of the herd. (How many of them are aware of the state of health of their specific herd in the first place?)
No one is hunting to put food on the table. Filet Mignon is cheaper by the pound than the meat obtained on a single deer hunt. (Rifle, Scope, Truck, Camo, Boots, License, Stand, Vacation time, etc)
They are hunting to compensate for their own inadequacies by killing something. It doesn't matter what, although the bigger the better. Deer are better than rabbits, Elk is better than Deer, Moose is better than Elk, Whatever it is, the bigger the better. (Get the drift?) Bigger animals, bigger 'racks'etc. (lol, where have you heard that term before?)
It is a purely masculine response to a purely masculine condition. (What, you didn't think there was something symbolic about the 'big' gun?)
What I can't figure out is the inefficiency of the process. They should certainly consider alternate solutions to their 'problem'. If size is their issue, (ifida?) there are implants these days that can be installed for about the same price as a new rifle. lol. Heck, that would pay for itself in just one season. If functionality was the issue (fun4life?), they have pills for that nowadays. According to the ads in the magazines if you ask your Doctor he will give you a free sample of three pills. That should last most of them for a whole year. Think of the savings.
best regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet,
It is a common problem with certain men. It is called 'compensation'.
n.
1. The act of compensating or the state of being compensated.
2. Something, such as money, given or received as payment or reparation, as for a service or loss.
3. Biology. The increase in size or activity of one part of an organism or organ that makes up for the loss or dysfunction of another.
4. Psychology. Behavior that develops either consciously or unconsciously to offset a real or imagined deficiency, as in personality or physical ability.
regards,
frog
Dr Dew, LOL
Why am I not surprised that it is you who responds to the accusation.
Hilarious.
regards,
frog
retired investor, He can't do that.
The writing style is a camouflage device.
If he were to write in a normal style he would soon be exposed as one of several aliases who are currently 'working' the board.
It is only the 'individual' style that protects him.
regards,
frog
Good!
I don't pay attention to you .....
EXCEPT NOW
Then pay attention to this;
You are a liar and a fraud, and you are pitching your BS to the wrong audience.
Most of the members here have held their shares through a devastating 20 to 1 Reverse split. They have faithfully held their shares through the loss of 95% of their original value. They have forgotten more about 'buying and holding' than you will ever know.
The last thing they need is your pathetic cheerleading and 'buy and hold' advice.
You and your colleagues are not fit to breath the same air as most of them, let alone blow it back in their faces in the form of your nonsensical blather.
regards,
frog
geob, Nice try.
Everyone on this board who has been paying attention will tell you that I live in Washington State.
So....what country are you in?
Do you have access to trading strategies that we don't? lol
So Geob, Where are you?
in regards to haveing "your Gov't agencys" ....
"My" Gov't agencys...??
your Country prides itself ......
"My" Country.....???
What is "YOUR" Country?
Geob,
why don't you tell me whom to write ......
You can write to whomever you like. lol Ask Arch, he's putting the effort together. By the way, if you write to an address in the US, will you have to use international postage rates? Just curious.
I have been buying all along ......
And have not sold a share yet .......
Congratulations, how much have you made so far?
I would "love" to find out ......
the reason of your ......
distain towards DNAG .....
It's all in the record. You just have to care enough to look it up.
so keep on laughing....
Count on it.
regards,
frog
LOL Geob, Way to bluff!
Trying to join the lynch mob in order to avoid their retribution.
Unfortunately this movement is opposed to lying manipulators such as yourself, you are the target of their ire.
Lies and deceit are what got you into this trouble, it is doubtful that they will help you get out of it.
regards,
frog
I'm in!
Like you I am sick and tired of reading posts that mislead investors. This board is overrun with people who are trying to cheat honest investors out of their hard earned money.
Let's get all of 'em!
Dr Dew, I don't smash anything, for the sake of smashing.
I generally try to only respond to lies and stupidity.
I also get tired of responding to the same old stupidity, time after time. Therefore as the various players show up with their latest aliases and resubmit the same tired old refrains we have all heard before, I tend to ignore them.
As the present downward spiral is no different from the past, there is very little reason to get involved. The company's present conditions speak for themselves, they don't need me to kick them when they're down.
As one of the latest incarnations to the board, and one who has taken up residence on the pumping side of the aisle, perhaps you would care to discuss the company's technology, and it's place in the market.
Feel free to initiate such a discussion at any time. Everyone here is tired of the mindless pumping, with no substance to support it, that is the standard output from your side lately. The tepid reaction encountered by your compatriots, geob, ilwill, and jever, should be ample evidence that such drivel is no longer appreciated.
regards,
frog
Dr Dew, I'm right here. Do you have something you wish to talk about?
frog
Miss Scarlet, In the Louisiana case they knew they were looking for a man because they had extracted the DNA from sperm.
Additionaly, a transgendered (is that a word) individual does not undergo any changes in his/her DNA as a result of the transition.
regards,
frog
Cosmic, Just for clarification, if you don't mind.
My point was that the current OS is less than 10% of the AS... That is a fact and that fact is ok for my investment strategy.
Does that mean that IF the AS was increased to 3 Billion shares, thereby reducing the current OS to only 5% of the AS, you would consider that a positive move?
Just trying to understand.
regards,
frog
Chris, You should know by now that I don't do this stuff for just anybody.
But as long as you take the time to read it, then I'll feel fulfilled.
Love and Kisses,
frog
Here's some more fun with numbers.
We are currently at 114 million shares, from a post R/S 62 million
Pre RS we had over a billion shares out and one of the proposals was to leave the pps alone and increase the AS to 3 billion from 1.5 billion.
In retrospect that was clearly not nearly as good an option. In just two and a half months we are already at a presplit equivalent of 2.25 billion shares. In a couple more weeks at this rate we will go past the 3 billion equivalent.
The current structure allows for a pre split equivalent of.....wait for it...............30 billion shares.
At a presplit equivalent rate of a billion a month, how long do you think they'll last?
Do you think the rate will remain constant? Will it go up? Down?
regards,
frog
bag, Here's a much more likely explanation, with ACTUAL data to back it up.
Yesterday DNAG had issued 113,463,000 shares.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAG&read=344882
Today DNAG has issued 114,959,706 shares.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7903698
In the interim they released a PR regarding the status of their EPO project.
They purposely dumped 1,496,706 (do the math)shares into the run based on what should have been a positive PR.
There is no need for bogeymen, over 40% of the volume today was provided by the company.
Do you think the pps would have gone up based on the PR but without the dump?
Do you think the pps would have gone down more if the dump had happened without the PR?
Do you think that the two events were just a coincidence?
Tell us what you think.
regards,
frog
Cosmic, Come on, you can't be serious.
Our current volume total since 13 July after the RS is 123,039,230 shares in 2 1/2 months...
More shares have been sold to date than are available from our OS!
.
.
.
.
Gosh...do you think it could be...shorting?
Gosh, do you think it could be people...trading?
Every stock in the world trades more shares than are available....it's called the stock market. People buy shares and then, later, they sell them.
Each buy is recorded in the volume, and each sell is ALSO recorded in the volume. It's called turnover. If there is no turnover ther is no float.
That's what float means, shares that are available to turn over. Some more than once, some many times.
The real question is why is the volume so LOW? Given the size of the float most companies would have turned it over numerous times, DNAG has only turned it a couple.
regards,
frog
Consider the possibility that Dutchess is shorting...
They are in the perfect position to do so, as they will always be able to buy back in at a discount to the market.
We didn't go on the SHO list until after the Dutchess deals were registered.
regards,
frog
anotherday,
Rudeness was apparently your downfall.
Your message to me (33559) was deleted before I could see it. I only have the first line in my mailbox. " Frog, I give up, you were right on when.."
Since good manners seem so important to you, and it requires a significant effort to run afoul of the monitors, I am surprised at such an occurance.
Kind of ironic don't you think, given your earlier responses?
However, in the spirit of board etiquette, I will accept the obvious apology inherent in the incomplete sentence from your post and assume you are sincere.
regards,
frog
Perhaps rudeness will soon be in order.
If you don't think a large offer ($200 million) by a major pharmaceutical company for a penny ante OTC company (with a capitalized value of a couple of million) wouldn't get the attention of the world, then you are quite deluded.
regards,
frog
anotherday, Don't be so sensitive. 'Nonsense' is a perfectly civil response to a questionable premise. There is no need to read more into it than that.
You are getting too deep into the details to try to justify some wishful thinking.
There is a rumour that an offer was made. That's all.
Either it was or it wasn't.
If it was then there are numerous reasons why it should have been apparent to the world. There are NO valid reasons to keep it quiet.
If there was NO offer, that would easily explain the lack of any reaction. But then the rumour would have been generated for ulterior motives.
You can continue to try to explain how an offer could have occured WITHOUT a market reaction if you want, but you will have to extend credibility to do so.
regards,
frog
anotherday, Nonsense.
But as I said, without the PR from DNAP about the offer, all Merck COULD do is put out rumor.
Anytime they want to they can publish the fact that have made an offer to take over the company. They don't need any corroborating support from DNAP. Hostile takeover offers occur all the time.
anotherday,
It seems to me that your average investor, like me would have no way of knowing of an offer, as you stated yourself. So we would not affect the sp.
Average investors are not necessary for such a scenario. The market reacts quite often on insider information and the average investor can either jump on the bandwagon and play the momentum or he can sit and watch. The market doesn't care.
If the buyer was a large pharma making a large bid (large from DNAP’s point of view. Small by theirs) it would be easy to keep quiet because it most likely would not affect the Glaxo share price.
The buyers are not buying to affect their share price, they are buying to acquire a specific technology. The major obstacle to such an acquisition is the CEO who doesn't want to sell. Any pressure that can be brought to bear on him through his own shareholders would be advantageous. Leaking the information about a major buyout attempt will bring tremendous pressure to management. If you heard today that Glaxo wanted to buy DNAP for 200 million, ($2 per share) what would be your reaction? What about all of the other longs? What about all of the new investors who would snatch up the 2 cent shares by the wheel barrow load on such news? Do you think Tony could turn down such an offer in the current environment?
All of your conjecture about insiders and motives assumes that an offer took place. Consider instead if there are motives for leaking information about a large offer that NEVER actually occured.
Are there any situations where such a 'rumour' would be advantageous?
Who would stand to gain?
Who would lose?
Are these the same groups that have been 'winning' and 'losing', respectively, for the duration of the company's existence?
regards,
frog
Anotherday,
My question is, why would the there be a instantaneous reflection in the pps if investors have no “reliable channels” with which to know such a bid took place.
There are both legitimate and the illegitimate channels through which information flows. The market as a whole doesn't care through which channel it's information flows.
When a bid is made by one company for another there are countless players involved. Managers, accountants, lawyers, associates etc. All of them are aware that the bid is well in excess of the capitalized price of the target company. The information leaks through this web of insiders and a run starts. It is the basis for the well worn mantra 'buy on rumor, sell on fact'. By the time the deal is announced the market has already compensated for it.
'Illegal and unethical' are merely points of view, they are never absolutes.
If a company makes a bid for another, of course they will leak the information. The resulting run will bring hundreds of new investors who will put tremendous pressure on management to complete the deal in order to lock in their profits. There is no advantage to the buyer to keep the deal a secret.
regards,
frog
YOU give credit where credit is due.
ADMIXMAP is a freeware program available for download by anyone who is interested. Tutorials exist that help users learn how to apply the technology to whatever project they wish.
Is it your contention that DNAP is providing their 'patented' intellectual property to the rest of the world (including their competitors)? LOL
SARASOTA, Fla., June 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- DNAPrint genomics, Inc. ("The Company") announced today that it has entered into strategic algorithm development collaboration with famous genetic epidemiologist Dr. Paul McKeigue. The goal of the collaboration is to develop novel statistical genomics algorithms for a new style of genome screening called Admixture Mapping.
Dr. McKeigue invented the Admixture Mapping (AM) technique in 1998. The technique is distinct from the Mapping by Admixture Linkage Disequilibrium (MALD) technique introduced by Dr. Ranajit Chakraborty in 1986. Both techniques employ knowledge of population structure to identify genes that underlie complex diseases and drug response, but Admixture Mapping is considerably more sophisticated in a mathematical sense, and uses the power of Bayesian Analysis and an "affecters only" study design to dramatically increase the statistical power for detecting these genes.
Soon after its founding, DNAPrint genomics began consulting with Dr. McKeigue and Mark Shriver of the Pennsylvania State University to augment Admixture Mapping methods and build Ancestry Informative Marker (AIM) libraries for efficient commercial-scale screening of the genome. DNAPrint is already using its own patent-pending variation of the Admixture Mapping method to construct predictive tests for tailoring drugs and doses to patients based on their genetic constitution. This platform has resulted in the identification of numerous genes involved in a number of both positive and negative responses to commonly prescribed drugs. DNAPrint intends to employ the new, improved ADMIXMAP algorithms for a variety of disease gene screens, many of which promise to be the first of their kind ever conducted.
"We believe that the mathematics and advanced computational methods we will be refining and developing will allow us to find elusive disease and drug response genes that others have missed using older, less powerful screening technologies," said Dr. Tony Frudakis, DNAPrint's Chief Scientific Officer. He continued, "This deal confers a sort of pole position for the Company with respect to this exciting new genome scanning methodology, because it is not just the maps of AIMs that are necessary for Admixture Mapping, but advanced analytical tools that are capable of accommodating parameter uncertainty."
"The mathematics at work here give DNAPrint an advantage because it allows us to research genetic mediated diseases and to develop or license compounds that work to treat the disorders," said Richard Gabriel, DNAPrint's CEO. "We will extend our reach further into the pharmaceutical industry with advanced mathematical and software programs as well as genomic technologies. We are very pleased to have Dr. McKeigue and his team helping us."
The most common U.S. and European pharmaceutical business model is based on the idea of root genetic causes for disease and small molecule (i.e. drug) targeting of the corresponding defective gene products and their corresponding biological receptors or pathways. DNAP plans to use Admixture Mapping to identify the most likely drug targets, not just the genetic markers of disease or its symptoms. This requires understanding how each individual's genetic ancestry affects treatment or disease progression.
The agreement announced today will provide support for a Bayesian mathematician in Dr. McKeigue's Dublin laboratory, and will enable DNAPrint's computer scientists to improve and augment existing ADMIXMAP code. Paul McKeigue holds joint professorships at the University College London, School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene and the University of Dublin, Ireland, School of Genetic Epidemiology.
regards,
frog