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.
Markarious, there was no software disclosure in the first patent claims that I can remember. It wasn't that specifc. The claims were broad and covered a portable, battery-powered XRF process.
They had to make it look like they really had something with the ELF/EM-1 before they slowly phased it out in favor of a bigger, fatter and juicier carrot IMO.
Yes Sir, remember the pulse laser which could detect at 1000 meters? When MP put that in his CEO statement shareholders were drooling and forgot completely about that silly 2 meter XRF stuff- that was now old hat.
Actually, they combined the XRF and UV in one of their concept products (forget what it was called- MSSS?) before phasing it out entirely for a common UV fluorometer.
March 25, 2006
Still "revolutionary" after over ten years...
simply remarkable!!
X-Ray Spectrometry: Recent Technological Advances
K. Tsuji, J. Injuk and R. Van Grieken
During the last decade, remarkable and often spectacular progress has been made in the methodological and instrumental aspects of x-ray spectrometry. This progress includes considerable technological improvements in the design and production of detectors as well as significant advances in x-ray optics, special configurations and computing approaches. All this has resulted in improved analytical performance and new applications, as well as in the perspective of a dramatic enhancement in the potential of x-ray based analysis techniques for the near future.
This book will assist all analytical chemists and other users of x-ray spectrometry to fully exploit the capabilities of this set of powerful analytical tools and to further expand applications in such fields as material and environmental sciences, medicine, toxicology, forensics, archaeometry and many others.
There was one purpose and only one purpose for that silly patent application filed by CDEx IMO.
I said it was a joke the very first day rcljr posted the link on the Lochlong board.
There was a lot of fluff written in the "detailed description" section of the application but that had no legal significants. It was designed for Loch shareholders and PP investors to marvel upon IMHO. The meat of any patent is in the claims and the CDEx claims were obvious, ridiculously broad and certainly not "revolutionary".
If that patent had been granted several existing companies (such as KeyMaster) that are actually selling portable XRF instrumentaion would have been suddenly infringing on CDEx's alleged "revolutionary technology" (and equally innovative software- LOL!).
Why oh why did MP file the first patent application for the XRF technolgy which was touted to be the revolutionary ELF/EM-1 knowing that it was doomed for rejection (IMO)????
Why oh why did MP push the XRF explosive technology at the inception of CDEx, claim they would start selling them, then abandon it entirely?
"I don't want to hear ever again that the underlying basis for the technology doesn't work"
There's only one reasonable explaination for his actions IMO.
Gadds how obvious can ya get!!!!!
Yes INET, I know it represents 90% of investors or once investors in Loch/CDEx.
I'm not trying to rib your nose or those of that group in anything.
It's the crooks that are getting away with ripping-off honest investors that need the nose work! LOL
Actually, the the idea of getting away with it is a very narrow minded way of looking at it. They will all pay sooner or later.
Call it Karma if you like.
Take care Inet and don't let lmorovan raise your BP! LOL
diddysama
In reality, the UV fluorometer is all they do have IMO. But so do a dozen other companies with numerous patents protecting the proprietary claims of their technology.
I've stated it in the past and I'll say it again, I don't believe that loch or CDEx every had any tech based solely on XRF that was worth a damn. Touting something based solely on XRF which could detect trace explosives at 30 meters (or even 2 meters) in real time can be the basis for a law suit IMO.
Heck, after five years of improvements and tweaking it still takes 15-30 seconds to detect bulk chemicals at under two inches under ideal conditions! AND THAT'S USING UV NOT THE PENETRATING ABILITY OF X-RAYS!!!!
I still believe (as many do) that we were ripped-off by crooks and some of those crooks helped cover up the scam to cover their own butts.
Everyone invested in a big shiny apple and now they want you to accept a small slice of a sour orange or you get nothing!
Investors that still kiss up to them are either fools or peeps IMO. Honest investors that are wary, but are hoping for the best because they have no other choice are a different story.
RA,
I believe that Valimed is a trademark for the alleged revolutionary technology (and equally innovative software) owned by CDEx.
The phrase "ownership interest in a number of technologies" is a marketing ploy for company image. It gives the perception that CDEx has more eggs in their basket than just the Valimed UV fluorometer. That's how I see it.
Sassy,
No, you don't have to pay and the information is in the public domain. What they do is provide the service of doing the DD for you.
The search is free for the basic information which they use to try and bait you to pay for the details!
Squat
lmorovan,
Happy birthday!!!!
Re your MP search:
I did a search on myself and found 6-7 addresses which includes a summer house and an old PO box with the collection spanning a 20 year period.
I think the results for MP are similar.
"Honestly I haven't found anything...sneeky or underhanded..
since CDEX was born...the key word is CDEX... "
LMAO!!!!!!
Absolute hogwash Pokster! All I can think of is either you haven't been around long OR you're a substantial PP investor with some truly unbelievable BS!! Anything for money eh? It's true, everything fades away with time, but you're gunna have to wait a lot longer before investors forget the sneeky, underhanded ways CDEx has conducted itself! (I've told you this already.)
HERE'S A FEW OFF THE CUFF:
Who incorporated CDEx?
Who signed a legal agreement for both CDEx and Loch on the same document?
Who hired MP as a consultant to CDEx?
Who signed the APA for CDEX where there was no guarantee for a distribution?
What lawyer failed to include certain clauses in the APA, but instead, claimed (in a CEO statement) it was an ad hoc verbal agreement with Boone?
Why was a CDEx PP investor that was also involved in the DA/CA lawsuits against Loch answering MP's personal emails?
Why did MP suddenly become wary (allegedly) of x-rays and favor the UV version of the EM-1 instead of the x-ray version even though the x-ray version was claimed to see thru materials better?
Say, how's the x-ray patent app coming along that was filed in 2003? Remember, the very first one with the claims of a portable XRF instrument. A lawyer I talked to just shook his head when he read those claims knowing that manufacturers of portable XRF equipemnt already exist. You suppose that CDEx wasn't aware of that? Why else go to all that trouble to file a patent application? It just doesn't make sense. (Or does it? TM- Homer Simpson)
Who claimed there were "no known obstacles left" for the marketing of the EM-1 or it's cousin the PSSS?
Who started marketing the PSSS yet never sold a single one?
More importantly, why did CDEx go to all the trouble of building a PSSS mock-up and a couple brochures if they knew that it was already rejected by the Army?
Why did CDEX spend so much time publishing all the reports about how well the EM-1 worked yet abandoned it completely?
Why did CDEx never publish the integration time, stand-off distance, and footprint all simultaneously IF THE TECHNOLOGY WAS SOOOOOO REVOLUTIONARY?
Why did the U.S. ARMY allegedly (I say allegedly because MP never stated it for the record) have to tell MP that the tech wasn't good enough?
WHERE IS THE REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY AND WHAT EXACTLY IS IT??? The current application of Valimed can be performed by many manufacturer's instruments IMO.
Kidinsight claimes that it is easily discernible by reading the patent applications. If that's true, then Kidinsight should have had no problem explaining it to the board in laymen's terms that investors can understand. I just can't figure out why he's never done that! LOL!!!!
YAAAAAAWN..... Oh how I could go on and on and on......
Maybe someone else would like to add one of their favoite sneeky, underhanded deeds of CDEx, there's plenty to go around!
Rottenapple, don't you have documented proof of some of them?
deefer
INET,
Thanks for being nice. LOL
Exactly Markarious, the hedge funds seem like a much more likely match than institutional investors! LOL
What institute would invest in a company in dire straits?
Paige, I thought you were refering to AAPS.
I haven't read anything about FGP, how are they associated with CDEx?
TIA
Paige, you've been posting the exact same kind of speculative hype that we've all heard many, many times in the past.
Of course, several people have already called that to your attencion.
"What do you have to say about the organizations that are with us??"
Do you mean the organizations which CDEX pays a membership fee? I believe it is more accurate to say that CDEx is with them.
"It looks as if he has set his sights on the Bigger Money Managers..and doesn't want to dilly dalley with the Day Traders and Smaller Investors that trade on the otc.."
Pookiemeister (8/3/05)
"Boone says we'll be on the big board early next year and there's no reason why we shouldn't be trading at forty!"
Peter Dobbs (circa 12/99)
YAAAAAAWN.................
Crow,
Have fun in the auld country.
Question...
How many LLC's did you guys find under MP?
Have you found LLC's for Daboyz, Poteet and the rest of the peeps?
Has anyone linked any of those LLC's as inside investors in the many scamcos which were associated with Loch?
Raiderman's posts are starting to sound more and more like Tommyboy's posts.
Oh, oh... hot dog.
Beefed Up Boards
More diligent and accountable, today's directors are scrutinizing executive compensation like never before.
By Jill Jusko
Aug. 1, 2005 -- Meet your firm's new board of directors. More independent of the company it serves. More accountable for the accuracy of financial statements. Better informed about how the company is run. And, maybe, less a pal to the company's chief executive officer and more a representative of shareholders' interests.
In the past three years boards have had a mantle of responsibility thrust upon them that some are unused to bearing. Borne of the corporate scandals of the late 1990s and early 2000s, these emerging boards are the result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and a wealth of additional corporate reform measures designed to rein in what appeared to many to be executives run amok.
"[Boards] are asking a lot tougher questions. They are really taking their roles very seriously," says Doug Jensen, the Walnut Creek, Calif.-based national executive compensation practice director for The Hay Group, a global human resources consulting firm.
These emerging boards are changing the dynamic of the board-management relationship. In the area of executive compensation, they are scrutinizing CEO performance and questioning the compensation of this high-priced help. To get the big payoff, CEOs need to play by the rules of a whole new game.
"Compensation committees and audit committees are sensitive to the fact that they are being blamed for runaway CEO pay," says Herbert C. Schulken, U.S. corporate governance leader, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
"Boards are getting more involved in the details of the [compensation] plans, asking tough questions around performance metrics and the difficulty of the stretch of the goals that are being set," Jensen believes. "They used to give it a lot of attention before, but nowhere near the kind of scrutiny they're giving it now."
The increased scrutiny is being driven, at least in part, by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), signed by President George W. Bush on July 30, 2002. "SOX is a major, major piece of legislation, in my opinion," says Raj Aggarwal, a Kent State University (Ohio) finance professor. "It comes along once every few decades. That's how big a change it is."
PricewaterhouseCoopers CEO Samuel A. DiPiazza Jr. expounded on its impact earlier this year at a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) roundtable. "It fundamentally created a shift in governance from the executive suite to the board room. Directors, particularly those serving on audit committees, are much more engaged, knowledgeable and empowered to act on behalf of investors," he said.
SOX's impact on executive compensation is both direct and indirect. For example, among its provisions, the legislation specifically called a halt to most personal loans to executives and directors. It also requires CEOs and CFOs to return any bonus or equity compensation profits earned within one year before any restatement of financial reports due to non-compliance or misconduct.
Less tangible is SOX's indirect impact. The legislation has altered how financial information reaches the board. Board members now receive financial information directly from external auditors rather than it being filtered through the management team. "Suddenly boards are going to have a lot more information about how the company is being run than what was just being provided by the CEO before," Aggarwal says.
Sarbanes-Oxley's impact on emerging boards is bolstered by stock exchange guidelines that call for greater board independence as well as increased disclosure; increased SEC action; and recent court rulings that have found directors personally liable for firms' financial misconduct. More recently, the American Jobs Creation Act has complicated the administration of deferred compensation plans.
Jensen expects even greater disclosure requirements in the near term, and he says the impact on executive compensation is clear. "Disclosure is so much more transparent now. And we're probably even going to see more specific requirements from the SEC in next year's proxy season because they are really interested in being sure everything is clearly stated, in terms of the compensation value of not only the cash compensation and equity grants, but also perquisites and other benefits that are before the executives. That openness is causing boards to take a look at the whole package and see how everything is integrated instead of just dealing with one item at a time," Jensen says. "As a result, they're questioning whether some of the levels of compensation are appropriate today, and that's being heightened by the requirement to expense options."
Investors' Voices Heard
And don't underestimate investor impact on compensation. United Technologies Corp. announced in late 2003 changes to its senior executive severance plan in the event of a change in control. The change was in response "to previous shareowner proposals on this subject and [to] fulfill the corporation's commitment made at the 2003 annual meeting," the company said.
Recently, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which invests a giant pension fund, said it would draft and present to the SEC recommendations to improve disclosure of executive compensation.
"Investor groups, the big pension funds... that have large stakes in many companies are really making their voices heard, and if a company wants to go to shareholders to get an equity program approved, they're having very, very tough conversations with their investor groups to show why [the program] is a good thing for the shareholders," Jensen says. "[Investors] were always an active group [and] they are actually pooling resources together more now to be a stronger voice."
Board-CEO Relationship
Most companies already were open and aboveboard with regard to governance practices prior to the implementation of recent corporate reforms. In fact, says Jensen, "a lot of the Sarbanes-Oxley and New York Stock Exchange regulations that came out around governance often were the result of looking at some of the best practices that were in place."
Aggarwal says recent corporate reforms have strengthened the role of the board of directors and lessened the importance of the CEO role to a degree.
Recent Board Of Director Actions
Manufacturing company boards of directors continue to take actions, big and small, to improve corporate governance. Here are a few examples:
In April, Enerl Inc. reported the addition of an independent director to its board of directors. The Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based company, which develops energy-efficient products, said the independent director would join its audit committee to further "our continuing efforts to increase the level of external oversight in our governance activities."
In June, Rockwell Automation, Milwaukee, announced two amendments to its corporate governance guidelines: one requires non-management directors to own specified levels of common stock; the other encourages directors to limit the number of public companies on which they serve "in light of the time commitment required for effective board service."
In June, the Compensation & Leadership Development Committee of Procter & Gamble's board of directors approved modifications to the company's incentive compensation programs. Should Procter & Gamble Co.'s proposed merger with the Gillette Co. gain all the required approvals, managers at the Cincinnati-based consumer products company will have added incentive to assure the integration of the two firms is successful.
Whether that has made for a better board is questionable, however, says Schulken. "Whether boards are better as a result of these changes, you'll see a lot of people saying just because a person isn't independent under a set of rules doesn't mean this person can't act in the best interest of the shareholders. And I would agree. But you have to have some guidelines and you have to have some rules."
It's been a difficult transition for some CEOs, opines Jensen. "These [CEOs] are people who have enjoyed the power, the authority and control of their business and in many ways were leading their board of directors as they manage their company. Now they have to share that leadership."
What direction will CEO pay take under these emerging boards? It's too soon to tell, says Aggarwal and Schulken. The latter points out that despite several years of down or flat performance, "CEOs continue to be rewarded rather generously." However, he adds, increasing emphasis on pay for performance clearly exists.
Jensen says it's unlikely compensation will decrease. "If you think of the 11th commandment 'thou shall not take away,' it's really hard to [reduce compensation], particularly if you've got a CEO and executive team that's doing really well."
He does believe "retention" will no longer be a valid argument to continually raise compensation. "Retention has always been a big objective of a lot of these programs," he says. "'How much is enough?' is what boards are saying. 'What are we getting in return?' These are questions that weren't always asked before. Retention is not going to be argument enough."
Goodbye Royalty?
What does this mean for CEOs of the 21st century? For the really good ones, says Jensen, it simply means they keep doing what they have been doing.
"The CEOs who have to change are the ones that pretty much felt that they were the kings and queens of their business, and they ran it pretty much the way they wanted to run it," Jensen says. "Boards aren't willing to operate that way anymore. There's too much risk for them to simply accept what management says is right without thoroughly checking and making sure they understand and have a role it."
PwC's Schulken agrees. "It used to be the board was the CEO's buddy, so they rubberstamped what the CEO brought to them," he says. "I think those days are over. The board is going to be looking for a CEO -- as they should -- who can provide shareholders the greatest value."
Collaboration may be a key, as suggested by the corporate governance philosophy of furniture maker Herman Miller Inc., Zeeland, Mich., which outlines the appropriate working relationship between its board of directors and management. "There must be a high level of trust between the board and the CEO. It should be through a process of collaboration where the board and management work together to set and achieve common goals," states the governance philosophy, which was formalized in 2004.
Going forward, it will be hard for an "imperial type" CEO to get a job, PwC's Schulken believes. But it doesn't necessarily spell the end of the imperial CEO, Jensen says.
"That's in the DNA of a lot of CEOs," he says. "If they are still the imperial dictator, then they are the enlightened dictator now, and they've got to learn to share the power. Tough as that may be, it's a different game."
http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=10513
Paige, it amazes me how in such a short period of time since you showed up on these boards, you've become the number one cheerleader for CDEx.
Nothing wrong with cheerleading on positive news, but the way you weave in the speculative hype is a riot.
Fortunately, there's way too many old Loch Long investors for that kinda hype to work. They've heard it all before from the Loch hypsters of yesteryear. They were pros.
In order for your hype to be effective you need a large influx of newbies- fresh meat to rake over the coals.
So far I don't see that happening.
"We're positioning ourselves for the Nasdaq- the big board"
LMAO!!!!
Correction:
I mean "peeps".
I see that some of the PP shareholders came to the rescue on the TCL board! LOL
rpem
smartypants
kidinsight
rlcjr
The perps got this down to a science.
RA,
"Just the documented facts we know about is plenty to hold them accountable for something!"
I believe that to be true.
As CDEx is inevitably forced to reveal more and more of their so-called "revolutionary" technology it becomes clearer and clearer that the technology is not revolutionary at all IMO.
There are many companies with similar instruments that can perform the same task as Valimed. If a latent market truly exists for Valimed, or if the function performed ever becomes mandatory by regulatory agencies, I believe that CDEx would be quickly ran over by the big boys as Jenn has stated as a realistic concern.
Where I beleive there is a real case is when you compare the Valimed technology to the claims of the original ELF technology. Apples and oranges.
I have saved some posts from the Lochlong board made by Kidinsight where it was apparent to me that he was in communication with members of the CDEx technical staff. They would be useful if any group decides to take legal action IMO.
So RA, have you contacted anyone at the website that you posted? I think it would be worthwhile.
skitahoe,
"I also see no reason that a camera type device can't also have a light source that only operates in certain UV or IR frequencies."
You're right, they can, in fact that's how almost all spectrometers work. They have a source of radiation to incident upon the target and a detector. A camera normally refers to visible images. Night vision goggles rely on passive IR radiating from a source. LIDAR uses a laser "light" source as you are describing.
"Could a short high energy jolt of IR or UV achieve the needed sort of fluorescence that normally would take 30 seconds with a much lower energy source."
Yes, I beleive that that concept is used to opitimize the system, but there are limitations. Let's say you start out with a low intensity UV/IR source which only excites 50% of the target surface. With the natural occuring noise you obtain a certain signal-to-noise ratio. Now as you increase the intensity of the energy source 100% of the availabe target surface is excited with little increase in background noise. You have achieved the highest SNR return signal. Increasing the intensity of the energy source will produce no further improvment in the SNR simply because all availble molecules (or atoms for XRF) are already being excited to produce the intensity of the return signal.
So in designing the system one criteria is that you use a high enough intensity energy source to assure that 100% of the available target is fluorecing under all conditions.
That is one factor in producing the shortest possible integration time.
Bear in mind that Valimed is measuring a very small footprint on a bulk target at about an inch and it's taking 15-30 seconds.
Remember their claims of detecting trace explosives (PPB) at 2 meters in real time?
Yes this revolutionary technolgy has matured quite nicely since MP has taken the reins! LOL!!
INET6,
"I believe we all agree that,at takeover, CDEX ended up with nothing workable enough to market."
I don't agree with that. I remember loch/CDEX claiming near 100% accuracy of the EM-1 in several published reports. At the inception of CDEX, I remember MP stating that there were no known obstacles left to overcome in the development of the EM-1.
I remember a mock-up production model of a UV-based, PSSS which MP claimed they would start selling in Janurary, 2003. The campaign appears to have been abandoned assumming that that was ever their true intent.
Do you believe that there was no deception involved on MP's part?
I believe that we can all agree that there was and that it continues today.
INET,
I didn't say that that is the explanantion for the current state-of-affairs, only a possible one among many.
However, I will say this with confidence, you can bet your bottom dollar that both MP and the Boyz are very much aware of that date!!!
Or... maybe putting valimed into production is being held up because of those damn tooling problems!!! LOL
diddy
Skitathoe,
"Would it be possible to develop a sensor that worked more like a camera that operated specifically on those frequencies."
It sounds like you're talking about detecting the natural UV/IR that incidents on the drug or explosive. In this case a sensor would have to detect the reflectance off the surface instead of the fluorescence. IMO, the intensity of the signal would not be sufficient to detect accurately.
They do have IR Reflectance (IRF) spectrometers currently in use at pharmacies. The unit works much like the Valimed accept it detects the reflectance off the surface instead of the fluorescence. Integarted into the IRF units is a camera that also records the color and physical size/shape of the pill. You can consider the camera as a sensor that records a "spectral fingerprint" in the visible region of the spectrum.
This is a patented technology exculsively licensed to McKesson and is in use at central fill location pharmacies around the nation.
The camera would have obvious limitations as a means to detect explosives since they are typically well hidden and trace explosives would be invisble.
Sanddollar,
Loch Harris was officially dissolved on March 26, 2004.
March 26, 2006 marks the two year anniversary of the dissolution.
According to the NRS, officers and directors of Loch Harris remain liable for their actions for a two year period after dissolution.
Any law suit against the false and misleading PR's of Daboyz must be filed before that date. Afterwards, they walk away scott free.
MP has to keep hope alive for another 8 months.
lmorovan,
"... I did what I had to do: ignore."
Like the rest of us.
I'm glad to see that Matt assigned a moderator to prevent certain posters from attempting to trash a person's national heritage.
There is good and bad in the history of all nations and their people. Posting negative aspects of lmorovan's former country, then trying to convince readers that he is objective and non-racist is like a kid trying to explain why his hand is in the cookie jar.
It shouldn't be tolerated anywhere and especially not on an investment message board.
March 26, 2006
As more of the true capabilities of the tech are revealed it is becoming clearer and clearer that much of the earlier Loch/CDEX claims were false and/or misleading IMHO.
Class action anyone?
And don't worry about the liability wavier shareholders were forced to accept in order to have their property (shares) distributed (returned) to them.
That was nothing more than a psychological deterrent; it won't hold up in court IMHO.
diddy
March 26, 2006
On that date DaBoyz are off the hook and MP can throw caution into the wind.
Until then, anticipate MP's behavior to be a constant.
yeep, yeep, yeep LOL!!
"What's the next subject you want to harp on forever that we haven't heard at least 1,000 times from you and your ever shrinking hate based group?"
LOL!! After all your endless trash talk on RB about Romania you have the nerve to make a comment like that!
A very twisted, self-proclaimed philanthropist!
That is correct Mr. Apple...
"Chemical analysis is not required for products in any risk level but may be performed if the compounder wishes."
Valimed provides a chemical analysis which is not required for compliance.
To CDEX investors seeking DD:
I earlier posted that a competitor of CDEX called Key Master has developed some interesting new technology while working under a NASA program.
I was wrong (Please take note Moonie, see how easy that is).
While Key Master is a competitor and has develpoped NT with NASA it is NOT the company I was talking about.
The NT I read about took spectral scans (such as what Valimed produces) and convertes therm directly into a "three dimensional" bar code. The data conversion works both ways. A bar code can be scanned to generate the spectral fingerprint also.
I'll have to find the link when I have time if Cappie or Pokster don't beat me to the punch.
diddy
RA,
I like that, a "fishing yacht"! LOL
Damn Apple, I think that qualifies as an oxymoron since yacht owners are rarely fisherman.
Ask him about how he paid for his aeroplane. I did once on the BRPG board and he got all worked up over it. Actually I think I asked whether he bought it from Loch Harris profits thru his afilliation with a well known stock scam promoter and he threw a tantrum and started calling me names.
It was enough of a diversion to never get an answer to my simple yes or no question.
Now he's doing the same thing to you and he calls others hypocrites.
That's our Moonunit, can never omit he's wrong or that he errored. Very Nasfanium-like.
d4d
Skitahoe,
Yes I am.
Catalina is the most populated and commercialized of the Channel Islands, but still a nice place to visit.
Santa Cruz is the largest and privately owned (owned by the Wrigley chewing gum family- at least it use to be).
I believe Anacapa Island is a State or national reserve. It lies between Catalina and Santa Cruz.
The real beautiful islands are further out and less visited, Santa Rosa being one of my favorites.
Lots of caves to explore along all their shorelines.
I use to scuba dive quite a bit, but mostly free dive now. You really don't need the tank when spear fishing in the coves. The water is rarely deeper than 25-40 feet.
If you haven't dove in a while you'll be amazed to see all the hi-tech electronic gadgets they got these days.
Cheers (TM- KT1)
deeforediddy
Hey RA,
Been great.
My buddy just got a new boat and it looks like we'll be doing a lot of island runs this summer (like the gud ole dayz). 50 miles off the coast the Channel Islands are so beautiful and the water so clear it's amazing. It's like you're in a different part of the world.
Keep fishin'.
diddy
Greetings Crow,
The recent game played on RB is more of the same manipulation we've all grown to expect. What some people of questionable character will do to silence the truth just shows the dirt behind this company.
I've been lurking the last few months reading posts on both boards for amusement. Not much to say, the state-of-affairs speaks for itself.
One of the funniest lines that's still being written by the self-appointed motivational poster ("The GooRoo") is "I believe that we either have it or we don't".
GEEZ... after six years of an ever mutating revolutionary technology that's the best anyone can say!!
I laugh every time I read that!!!
Hey Moonunit,
If we apply moonie math (TM- Arloco) to Loch/CDEX's lidar equations we may just be able to get that EM-1 to actually work at 2 meters.
You may just have something.
BTW, have any of the TCL's been keeping up on the new technolgy fron CDEX's competition (Key Master)? They have some cool new stuff they developed with NASA for use with XRF's.