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.
Whatever you say, Yoda. LOL
LOL, What are the chances of that?
Miss Scarlet,
I might counter... only if you expect further development.
However, I will submit to your admonition and withdraw the questions. I will repeat them after the close.
Best regards,
frog
Geo, LOL
For once I agree.
"The moon shot could be ....
RIGHT AROUND THE CORONER --- GEO"
I'm wrong?
I said it wouldn't last the day.
What was the high for the day?
Where are we now?
Where were we yesterday?
'nuff said!
It's just fluff. It will likely not last the day.
Dnaowner, No point.
5 years ago it was..4 years ago I needed corroborating evidence. Today i know it is..what is your point? TIA
The term gets bandied about quite a lot around here.
I am reminded of that great line uttered by Mandy Patinkin in 'The Princess Bride'. lol
--------
Vizzini: "Inconceivable"
Inigo: "You use that word a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means."
--------
I might suggest that someone on the cutting edge is actually doing the cutting and not just riding the bandwagon to the landrush and trying to stake a claim in whatever property is left over after all of the choice bits have been snapped up.
regards,
frog
Bag8ger, You are doing it again.
You are reacting to me personally and not the content of the thread.
Go back and read it and see if there is any way that a rational observer could make sense out of your response. I know I couldn't.
Thanks,
frog
Dnaowner,
What are your criteria for the 'cutting edge' characterization?
Is it enough for Doc T to make such a claim, or do you require any corroborating evidence?
Just curious.
regards,
frog
Just a little sanity check to try to head of the lynch mob...lol
How many of the following 'terrorists' were Muslim extremists between the ages of 17 and 40?
Unibomber, Timothy McVeigh, Oswald, Ruby, Jim Jones.......
Forget intentions either perceived or imagined.
Your ability to dismiss factual evidence based on your 'perception of intentions' is not in question.
What is questioned is the understanding of the basic facts. Let us try not to twist them into fodder for negativity, nor attempt to ignore them for the sake of positivism. Let's just try to agree on them for the record. OK?
It escaped me!
For clarity sake, do we agree on the following?
-There is a lawsuit filed against DNAP and it's management.
-The plaintiff may or may not be an investor in DNAP.
-It should probably not be designated as an 'investor lawsuit', even though it technically may qualify as such.
Is that about it?
bag, I'm not sure I understand.
Is 'ROTFLMAO' bagspeak for "I apologize for calling you a liar"?
It would seem that such is in order.........given the FACTS.
LOL
geob,
It is still on the website because it is a description of their technology.
ADMIXMAP is the basis for most of their development work.
ADMIXMAP is NOT equivalent to a full genome scan.
It is the non-sensical supposition by Frudakis that one could be replaced with the other that has disappeared from view. You will find no reference to it anywhere.
Fair enough.
We have established that Kondragunta is eyecolor0.
We have the public record of his brief flurry of posts, and we have some interesting information contained in them.
On the one hand, we know that eyecolor had an axe to grind due to his perception of his treatment. We must therefore review the information with some degree of skepticism due to that bias. In fact there are certain statements within those posts that we know to be lies.
On the other hand, we also know that a considerable amount of the information was correct. It has either been verified by board members or confirmed via subsequent documents from the company.
We tend to view Kndragunta through the lens presented by the company and through the writing of Stockpimpdaddy. Given what we have seen, that may not be an unbiased source either.
Perhaps if we take the statements of both and run them through the same skeptical filters, and compare it to what we can verify externally, we can extract some value from them.
regards,
frog
gunnabe, Here you go.
I was not the least bit interested in doing your homework for you, but there are apparently other interested onlookers who are.
Our good friend tdiamonds on the RB board has provided the following information from DNAP's request for the injunction.
-----------------
Here is the quote from DNAP in their court battle (this was filed on 2003, October 22, 2:12 PM):
I will only quote the paragraphs of interest:
. . .[DNAPrint] files its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof to enjoin, ex parte, Defendent, Venkateswariu Kondragunta ("Kondrgunta"), from disclosing or revealing confidential or proprietary information of DNAPrint that he learned during his employment with DNAPrint, and in support thereof states as follows:
skipping down to paragraph 8:
8. On or about September 26, 2003, Defendant resigned from DNAPrint.
skipping to paragraph 11 (the hammer):
11. Subsequent to his resignation, upon information and belief, Defendant has divulged confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets to third parties, including, without limitation, on the website Raginbull.com.
and now, the nail in the coffin:
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant employs the user name "eyecolor.com" to make such statements on Raginbull.com.
--------------
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAG&read=341298
regards,
frog
Stakddek, It might be worthwhile for you to actually read the messages completely before making a fool of yourself.
The discussion is not about whether Frudakis is Stockpimpdaddy, (although we can open that can of worms if you want, lol). It is about whether or not a DNAP vice president and a founder of the company ever said that he was.
The credibility of the witness is irrelevant to such a proof. The fact that such a thing was said is documented.
Go back to sleep.
GEOB, You are just not paying attention.
The concept of a $1000 Genome screen that is equivalent to a full genome scan has disappeared completely.
The tired old stuff you keep referencing is a different thing altogether. Try to keep up.
Gunnabe, LOL Last word indeed!
You are flailing now pal.
Listen to yourself, you have already accepted the proof.
You said as much. Something about IF the public record agrees that the email was a part of the injunction....then I am correct.
My proof is infallible, you know it, and you are now trying to skate around it. Good Luck.(chortle)
Here are the three parts involved in proving that a DNAP Vice president named Tony Frudakis as StockpimpDaddy.
-Kondragunta is/was a Vice president. Fact
-Eyecolor0 said StockpimpDaddy is Tony Frudakis. Fact
-Eyecolor0 is Kondragunta. Fact
It is impossible to avoid the conclusion and therefore the proof.
The only wiggle room you have,is the issue of the court documents that connect Kondragunta directly to eyecolor0. (Even though the connection is obvious, and known to anyone familiar to the company.)
That documentation is also a fact, whether I produce it or not.
The proof is complete, you have no logical response. You can deny the existence of the court procedings, but that is foolish. You can try to put the burden on me to produce the documents but you already tried it and it didn't work.
You might even try to create an alternate scenario to explain the facts, but the thing is so simple and direct that you can't. Better to just fade away and pretend this conversation never happened, and resolve, for the last time, never to give that damn frog an opening again.LOL
Not me.
As far as I know (via google), he is the Director of Biostatistics at the University of Pittsburg.
Imagine a reputable University employing someone with such a disgraceful past.
Hmmmmmm......maybe that court case didn't go the way people think it did. Funny we never heard what happened, isn't it?
There 'was' a countersuit, wasn't there?
Wonder if it had any merit?
Imagine a Doctor of Biostatistics taking credit for a statistical program from the 'rightful' owner. What is Tony's degree in again....statistics?
gunnabe, It is factual.
I have put up with this crap before. I'm not going to do your homework for you. You can trust what I say or you can verify it yourself, I don't care. It makes no difference to me whether you believe it or not.
You asked me to make the case, I have done so. It is there for anyone to see. It is not only presented, but the method for falsifying it is also available and described. That's how logic works.
Either accept it, ignore it, or deny it, your call.
As you suggest there are others here who can verify the history. Unforunately, those most familiar with the facts are also the ones with the agendas that would prefer such info be supressed, so it is doubtful that you will get any help from that quarter.
regards,
frog
Geob, I'm not suggesting you are stupid or anything, so don't be offended, but it was the Isley Brothers. lol
And yet you argue!
gunnabe, I can't be held responsible for the limitations of your memory. Prior to the State of Florida limiting access to the court records, it was well known that the email was pivotal to the injunction.
My case is made. The facts have been provided.
If you wish to provide a counter argument, do me the courtesy of presenting facts,in the same manner as you required them.
If you are not willing to accept opinion or speculation from me, then you can't expect to be able to offer them in argument, can you?
Feel free to peruse the public record and point out the innacuracies in my case. It could not be easier. Perhaps you could ask our friend 'Letsgogolfing' to run by the courthouse and retrieve them. He lives about five minutes away. lol
regards,
frog
Ah, but the question is LG, given your certainty and arrogance;
Why don't you know it?
Oh but Gunnabe, It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not by me, by DNAP's lawyers.
They presented enough information to the judge to convince him that eyecolor0 was Kondragunta, otherwise they could not have gotten their injunction.
No one doubts that Kondragunta was a Vice president of DNAP.
It is a fact that eyecolor0 stated the Frudakis/Stockpimpdaddy relationship.
Ergo, Proof that a Vice President of the company stated that Frudakis was Stockpimpdaddy. Proof that not only would stand up in court, but proof that did!
regards,
frog
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, welcome.
Our task today is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a Vice President of the company has stated that the alias known to the RB board as Stockpimpdaddy is in fact Tony Frudakis.
First of all for the sake of brevity, I will rely on the collective knowledge and history of the board. IF any newcomers who are unfamiliar with a specific point require a direct link, one can be provided, but they will be adressed separately as the clutter in this message would be very distracting.
Although Frudakis is credited with being the originator of the company, the company was in fact founded by three men. Frudakis, Kim and Kondragunta. Anyone needing a reference for this can work there way back into the archives. There are many references to the founders. Frudakis has refered to Kondragunta in the past as one of the 'founders', he held the position of Vice President.
On the very day Kondragunta was forced out of the company, a new alias appeared on the RB board, his name was 'eyecolor0'. He claimed to be a disgruntled investor but he had a great deal of insider information that proved to be incredibly accurate. He provided, for instance, the unlisted telephone number of the new CEO (Gabriel). When the number was called, it was answered in Boston, by the new CFO(Tambori), unbeknown to us at the time to be the wife of the CEO. Eyecolor0 also provided a picture of a company in dire straits, insurance coverage for the employees had been discontinued, the scientific staff was being asked to take time off without pay.
Eyecolor0 was asked specifically on numerous occasions if he was, in fact, Kondragunta, but he denied it. In hindsight this turned out to be a lie.
Soon after eyecolor0 joined the board, a new voice (Stockpimpdaddy) appeared to counter his claims. He also claimed to have insider information. Strangely enough, his alias was not new but had a history of posts going back to pre-DNAP times and included many stock boards specific to Tampa Bay Financial activity.
Eyecolor0 immediately responded to Stockpimpdaddy, naming him an alias of Frudakis. Furthermore he claimed that Frudakis had been employed by Tampa Bay Financial when DNAP was formed. He had worked the boards for TBF in exchange for access to the 'shell' company that TBF provided for DNAP.
The debate went on between the two for a couple of days. Eyecolor0 revealing more and more 'dirt' on the company. He seemed especially upset about the compensation that was being provided to the newcomers (Gabriel, Tambori, Gomez)at the expense of those who had alreadt toiled for the company and who were currently suffering through a reduction in compensation.
Then came the final straw. Eyecolor0 published an internal e-mail from Tony Frudakis to the staff. In it he explained the difficulties of the company and it's dire financial condition. He claimed to be selling one of his cars in an attempt to provide working capital. This was the break the company had been waiting for. They acted immediately.
The company took immediate legal action against Kondragunta. They accused him of stealing company information, seized his computer, and obtained an injuction preventing him from posting on the internet. They specifically accused him of posting confidential company information (email) on a stock message board.
On the day the injunction went into effect,eyecolor0 ceased posting.
So there you have it. If further support is needed, the evidence exists. Eyecolor0's posting history can be seen here;
http://www.ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/memalias.cgi?member=eyecolor0
The court records are available in which the evidence was provided in support of the injunction request. It is public record but unfortunately is not available on the net. Eyecolor0's posts are presented in support of the allegations against Kondragunta.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I rest my case.
regards,
frog
Proof vs. Fact
Who would have thought that the concepts were so difficult?
Geob, here's an example of the difference; The fact that you don't understand the difference between the two concepts is NOT proof that you are an idiot, although it is a supporting element.
Gunnabe, Do you wish to see a proof that he said it, or do you want to see a proof that he is the person in question? Your call.
Bag8ger, who cares?
Lone, Here's a fact.
One of the founders of the company, a Vice President and a PhD, says that Frudakis is Stockpimpdaddy. It's not proof, as the premise is essentially 'unprovable', but it is a fact.
Now you show us a fact that 'proves' he isn't. Just one.
No Geob, I'm not. But thank you for the reference that Arch is looking for.
Genome scanning looks at every base pair in the genome. Over three billion pairs. It is prohibitively expensive because of the incedible magnitude of the job.
TOny's wacky scheme looks at only 2000 snp's and suggests that he can create an equivalent 'screen' (Not scan) for only $1000.00.
Clearly they are NOT the same thing. Clearly their equivalence is nonsensical. And clearly since the concept disappeared from view almost instantly, it was abandoned and swept under the rug.
Thanks again, Geo.
regards,
frog
Prove what Arch?
Prove that what Tony claimed was NOT the same as the $1000 genome that everyone is looking for?
Tony already said that. Look up exactly what he claimed.
Prove that he only mentioned it briefly and then shut up about it?
That's a part of the public record, you should have no trouble finding an example if I am wrong. lol
Good Luck!
thelone, I guess that's just gonna have to remain your little secret. lol
Yes bag8ger, It was listed on the industry credibility website, I'm sure you've been there. DOH!
Do a little thought experiment and try to shake the cobwebs out of those old memory cells.
How many times did you hear Tony tout his incredible cutting edge $1000 genome scan concept? Once ....Twice? How many?
How many times have you seen the idea listed in any company document or filing?.......Never?
Do you suppose he shut up about it on his own or because someone at the company told him to stop being stupid?
If it was on his own, do you think he mothballed the concept because....It wouldn't work?....It was not being received correctly by the industry?.....He rethought the idea and dismissed it?......other?
If it was someone else who shut him up, why did they do it? Because he was embarassing himself and by extension embarassing the company? Such a thing (legendary 'holy grail' $1000 genome scan) would not be profitable?...It wasn't worth the effort that would need to be taken away from the blockbuster Ancestry/Witness program?...other?
There is no way anyone wouldn't take a credibility hit after touting such a momentous breakthrough and then suddenly acting like he never said it and that it never happened. It's not like the $1000 Genome concept does not still resonate about the industry. I'm sure Tony gets very sheepish whenever he is reminded about that debacle. LOL
No he didn't.
He tried to capitalize on the hype surrounding the $1000.00 Genome, with a proposal for a 'Genome Scan' that was supposedly equivalent.
He was going to do a brief SNP scan and then 'deduce' the rest of the genome from the data.
It was nonsense and it faded from sight almost immediately.
He has never uttered the words since. His credibility in the industry took a major hit on that fiasco.
No he didn't!
So am I!
Sure dodged a bullet there, didn't I?
bag, LOL, Just stepping down to your current level. You have recently fallen from your previous high ground into your present levels of bitter acrimony.
I must say that today's offering was one of your low points. Your attempt to portray your sordid teenage excapades into something profound and edifying was quite pathetic and sad. It should be noted that your understanding of the behavior of most men in such a situation is the exception as opposed to the rule that you assume it to be.
I expect such gutter humor was quite familiar to you in your day.
regards,
frog
bag, You need to learn that your own weaknesses are not necessarily shared by others.
As I've said before, swearing off yours and frud-Iago's posts is like expecting an eighteen year old virgin to pass through a line of prostitutes still a virgin.
Just because you couldn't do it, does not mean it can't be done bag8ger.lol
There are those who are driven by reason and intellect and not necessarily hormonal urges. These examples that you use, certainly offer an interesting window into your character and perhaps explain many of the discrepencies in your logic. lol
regards,
frog
No bag, it t'wouldn't.
It is certainly an exaggeration, but it is not clearly false.
It can be argued that some revenues are generated by the sale of a few DNAWitness and/or Ancestry kits, but since both of those products cost more money to process than they return, it is only through accounting 'sleight of hand' that they could be considered revenue at all.
ALL revenues in excess of expenses are generated through the sale of shares. All capital needed to compensate management is generated through the sale of shares. All of the money neccessary to fund those acquisitions on which the future of the company is dependent are generated through the sale of shares.
T'would be hard to argue that the pps is not an integral part of the future of the company and that the company's fate is not directly tied to the pps, t'wouldn't it?
regards,
frog
Doctor, It is long past the time when you should have learned that lesson.
The 'company' is NOT the 'pps'.
I know, I know, I can hear you claim the company makes all of it's revenue by selling shares and the 'pps' is the basis of that transaction. But that is irrelevant.
Yes, the pps is a reflection of the 'value' of the company as perceived by the investment community. But that is irrelevant.
It is also true that the needs of the company in terms of capital from the likes of LaJolla and Dutchess can only be met if the pps stays above certain levels. But that is irrelevant.
Extracting $35 million dollars by selling shares in a $5 million dollar company may seem impossible without a rise in the pps. But that is irrelevant.
What you seem never to be able to comprehend is that there are 'secrets' that you are not privy to, that will affect the pps in such a way as to make all of the above issues possible and successful. The company will be able to survive IF the pps can be managed appropriately. You must came to an understanding on this, or you will never reach the inner circle.
In order to simplify this concept I will summarize it so;
The company and pps are in no way related. (This separation was specifically arranged to drive the 'bashers' to distraction)
The company will survive, when the pps is enhanced due to 'secret' goings on. (You must accept this leap of faith in order to continue)
Although company survival is contingent on a rising pps, the two are NOT related. (If you can't see that by now there is no chance that you will ever 'get' it.)
I hope this helps.
regards,
frog