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.
Claire, you propogated the scam as well as anybody....
...as recently as 8/21/01 you said -
"Costco and Supercicuits already have the Seaview Camera ready to sell.... What else do you want? Kmart? I am sure this will happen soon !!! Seaview has proven that it can sell to Giants on the Marketplace....."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=165926
Do you want me to document your Accounting Astuteness last year and the year before ? Post-by-Post ? You had plenty of comments, then - or would you rather I DISAPPEAR ?
As an aside - Why don't you reference the Posts to which you are responding ? - - I know another person that abhors that habitually ! You may think you're invisible - but you're wearing the Emperor's clothes !
Dan, notice they PAID Current MARKET VALUE.....
"The shares were purchased at current market value and have been issued with a restrictive legend."
And it appears they paid with real money, up front...
" proceeds from the sale of the Company's common stock are deposited into the Company's accounts."
Notice the words - "ARE DEPOSITED"
Why was SEVU's PP handled so differently ?
AND, at least NCTI NOTIFIED INVESTORS WITH A PR !!!
nobusiness: YOU are annoying, posting jibberish ....
you say: "I won't waste my time posting the details..."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=166937
Well, then why have you wasted OUR time with this post at all ?
Firstly, if you have any sense at all, you must realize that the DETAILS of the PP are the PRIMARY concern of the majority of posters here. If you're "Not sure anyone here cares", then you don't have much grip on the English language.
Secondly, if George told you more "details" than have been made public, then one of the following must be true:
a) He acted illegally by selectively divulging insider information
b) YOU are an INSIDER
WHICH IS IT ?
FG: How do you justify letting your post stand?
You posted (# 11184 and did not delete) the following:
1) "McBride is likely to participate in the PP INDIRECTLY...
through (offshore) corporations controlled by him and Cronies lending their names"
2)"I know he's rushed to redraft the documents"
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=164689
YOU OFFER THESE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AS FACTS, YET PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE.
These are the same grounds (and nearly the same insinuation) for which you deleted my post on 4/12/01, but yours stands. And you have done so after stating 13 hours earlier that "future posts will have to meet the usual standards".
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=164430
Please either explain the "dual-standards" or why the Chairman is "above the law" (a characterization for which you yourself derided RLM).
FG: True. But items #1 through #6 appeared just as conjectural at the time. The final tenet resolved the golden egg, if per chance one weren't sentient.
You seem veritable. Best wishes in staying the course.
FG, do you feel much different now about . . .
... deleting my post of 4/12/01 ?
... since your recent post(s) might be considered in violation of the guidelines of this thread much more so than mine ?
Just curious - but I suspect not.
For argument's sake: the first 6 of the 7 statements in that post have already been proven to be right on the money, as the truth has come to light right here before your eyes.
Ah, but - is your perspicacity really in "slow motion" ? Or have you actually "fast-forwarded" far ahead of the pack ?
Regards
BB said: "NO ACCOUNTING ISSUES WILL BE discussed...
...And during the 'open-meeting', all accounting issues were in fact not discussed. Except one…. Rich stated that he had repaid his loan from the company. "
Can anybody post a scanned copy of this "handout" ?
FG: "Could" shows "Future probability" ....
"Could have" shows "Past possibility"
-----------------
"Could (NOT can) is sometimes used in the same way as might or may, often indicating something less definite.
'When I leave university I might travel around a bit, I might do an MA or I suppose I could even get a job.' "
REF:
http://lmu.uce.ac.uk/lmu/esu/modals.htm#Could
-----------------
FG, while "shall/will" indicate future tense, they are by no means the only phrases that do so. BTW, today's english lesson is free to you, in appreciation of your fine investment advice (provided, perhaps, the investor is contrarian).
You say "I KNOW FOR SURE that the product .. works". And several others here feel the same, supposedly from first-hand experience. That's why the most puzzling thing to me about Ditka's comments is the terminology he uses describing this working ability -"If that product could work, it would be the most profitable company in America." He accepts this only as a possibility, even as of yesterday. Why did he phrase it like this ? Does he know something we don't ?
"It's not a lose rivet that's going to change anything". True, but 10,000 rivets may have an appreciable effect, especially combined with all the other design/production problems and delays which seem to have plagued this product in a consecutive, on-going pattern - one after another seemingly ad infinitum.
And there is little hard evidence (from an unbiased third-party of any consequence) that this pattern has been broken. You said "there should be substantial demand for it, once properly marketed and produced in sufficient quantities..." True, but that's the BIG IF. And stockholders have been promised, and some have been waiting for, this pie-in-the-sky for over a year.
Let's connect the dots for those challenged types:
1) "short business relationship with SeaView consisted of appearing in an infomercial "
2) "Ditka completed the infomercial for SeaView six months ago"
(come'on SH et. al. - there's ONLY 2 DOTS)
Ditka: "short business relationship..completed"<<HISTORY.eom
Ditka:"company's..use of name..an issue"<<<NOT.HAPPY.CAMPER.eom
Ditka: "business.. with SeaView consisted"<<<PAST TENSE.eom
Ditka: "If.. product could work" <<< FUTURE TENSE . . .
That means he doesn't thinks it works NOW;
maybe might work IN FUTURE.
This quote is RECENT, therefore if he were referring to it not working at some point in the past, he would have said "If..product could have worked"
He doesn't expand to say whether "works" means :
a) technically
b) marketing-wise
c) financially for SEVU
d) all 3 above
There is no hard proof that it works in any of the above senses, other than PR's from SEVU et. al. For contrary evidence, see
a) management's continuous noting of problems in the design/manufacturing (as recent as last month),
b) empty void of public endorsements by ANY major distributors/retailers
c) the financial statements, as recently as 1Q 2001.
Ditka "Believed (SEVU)" <<< PAST TENSE.eom
FG: What law firm filed against MM & SSB's ?
"I suggest you tell them, that you plan to join the Class Action Suit against the manipulating MM's and Shorters, that's likely to attract in excess of 60% of total shareholders support, instead of the one he proposes..."
Shareholders already have 2 firms filing against the Company, et. al. You said " the Class Action Suit against the manipulating MM's and Shorters" - this suggests strongly that there IS such a thing. Is there ? Which firm is representing the shareholders in this action ?
Is this an ACTION ? Or is this just in the realm of message board blather at this time ?
Any links or verification of the 60% shareholder backing ?
RLM: "I do not like to engage in a streaming conversation with posters "
Then WHY are you posting on a message board ?
This type venue is INTENDED for two-way (even multiple) conversations (DEFINITION: Expressions of thought in BOTH directions between entities). If you want a ONE-WAY venue, you have your Website, which is exactly that - ONE-WAY communication. Nobody here is above being responsible (answerable) for what they post. Even the owners(s) and management - hats off to them. Why do you feel you have such inalienable right to be LESS RESPONSIBLE ? And not address responses to your posts ?
"I seldom get an opportunity to defend myself in real time"
I wouldn't call your OFF-TOPIC remarks as a defense - you are not even addressing the issues many on the board have asked you directly. So, if you have NO DEFENSE, it is by your own choosing.
FG, then put your money where your mouth is . . .
File suit against the shorters/bashers as you beg so many others to do - but YOU'RE THE ONE with your so-called EVIDENCE of MM shorting. What is stopping YOU ???? Have you NO EVIDENCE ?
NOBODY is stopping the shareholders SUING SEVU - least of all you. So WHERE ARE YOU ? You are NOT A FACTOR - you are just talk. You cannot walk-your-talk !!
This in not an opinion - this is evident from your postings.
FG, are you saying RLM disclosed inside info to BillB ?
1) Do you have any evidence to back up your accusation that RLM disclosed such "inside information" and Bill Branum acted upon it ? You said to Bill:
"You virtually admitted violation of Insider Trading Laws . . . after conversations with Rich"
You've met RLM in person and had multiple conversations. Does that make you a de-facto INSIDER ?
2) Don't YOU argue FOR the stock here everyday, after establishing your position ? What is the difference with Bill, when you say -
"Opportunistic trading patterns, where you argue for or against the stock and disclose your change of position after the fact"
Are you saying this is unusual behavior ? Nearly every poster here has, or is considering, a position. Does that pre-empt them from being harmed by inaccurate PR's and SEC filings ?
3) FORM 4 filing -
RLM well knows the effect of an INSIDER buying on Investor confidence - for what other reason would he post he was buying ?
Knowing the profound effect on investor confidence, if RLM had IN FACT bought more, why wouldn't he disclose it by the most efficient means - electronically ? Even BEFORE DISCLOSURE WAS DUE BY SEC ?
4) Bill Branum's post dis-regarding the possibility of an Investor suit -
This post was March 19, well before Bill (and the general public) was informed by SEVU that GROSS INNACURACIES existed in last year's filings. AND, SUCH NEGLIGENCE NOW HOLDS OFFICERS PERSONALLY LIABLE. So, even though SEVU is virtually broke (as per YOU), RLM's personal estate is also now up for grabs. According to you, FG, worth $$MILLIONS.
DELETE it - I'll not have your kind ...
editing my words.
dk, AGAIN - gives up !
Don't blame you, chap, you've been whooped !
dk, why do you DEMAND I post unpublished facts..
to be worthy of posting here ?
You said:
"but if you can't bring facts to the table, you're no more credible that A@P, McBride, or anyone else who makes shallow claims without backing."
You admit you have NEVER posted an unpublished fact :
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=32480
According to your "validity for posting criteria", then why the heck are you POSTING here ?
Further, you think your SEVU losses are not real - only on paper :
"yes, I have lost money. Most of it has been on paper, as is the case with SEVU. "
Well, your "paper" is going to quickly change to "GREEN paper" - US DOLLARS.
So, here's a fact - unpublished before - dk will have 6-digit REAL LOSSES in this stock in the next 30 days !
dk, name 1 fact that YOU brought to the table !
which wasn't known/published before your post, other than your statement that seems to say you have endured 6-figure losses due to your "stock picking"
"You obviously haven't just endured consecutive days with six figure losses."
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=28722
Now the police and courts are Bashing scum . . .
to hear Mcbride tell it - except I guess they were only Bashing Rich personally, not his company SEVU.
http://www.seaview.com/wheel17.htm
He blames :
"misinformation in a police report"
OK, Rich - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.
"the presiding judge in the case questioned why the matter ended up in his court."
Starting to make you wonder. Did the Judge not realize he/she could throw out the case, or remand it to another jurisdiction ? Poor Rich, not only does he have Bashers in high places, some of them don't even know the rules of the courts.
" the cost of the battle wouldn't have been worth the win."
But Rich, you have enough assets to not only pay for a $1 Million stake in the Springs, but to also fund SecureView production:
"The 20% purchase of the Warm Mineral Springs is a gift from me to the company. There's an open letter on our website (www.sevu.com) explaining the purchase. The SecureView funding coming through Morgan Stanley Dean Witter is from my personal holdings."
http://www.seaview.com/n070500.htm
Don't say you planned to use your personal SEVU stock to fund the Springs purchase or SecureView production - you already told us that your SEVU stock was collateral for the $500,000+ interest-free loan from SEVU. BTW, where is that money now - in the Caymans ? Why not use the money now to clear these charges up now with a legal effort ?
"I decided not to fight that ruling either."
Same story - see above item. So with such vast holdings, why not fight a criminal charge that you quaintly describe as "frivolous", that might possibly stain your record ad infinitum ? Either the charges are NOT frivolous, or there are no vast holdings. Which is it ?
"the legal community all felt this was a travesty"
Seems like the "legal community" were the ones pressing the case. Is your "legal community" the junior patent lawyer you always refer to ?
"I tell the story often."
Yeah, maybe, but not to the people that have a legal right to know - the SEC and stockholders of SEVU.
Rich, a little hint at a hard time like this - You forgot to mention the terrible Market Makers (MM's) as part of this conspiracy to Bash you personally. Or is that to come in the next "View from the Brig" ?
FCB, say your bedtime prayers - ....
and kiss your money (investment) GoodBye...
DEAR LORD .. Please continue to allow such un-informed investors to continue to allow me to make such easy MONEY !
PLEASE give us at least 2 or 3 Rich McBrides per year, so that we can do this redundantly.
IN FAITH IN GOD, We TRUST
yours truly
Ender - I think Ditka has scooted ----
Hope his salary isn't tied to the stock price - he was really underpaid considering what NFL salaries have come to these days !
But HE was really worth his WEIGHT in GOLD !
GO BIG MIKE !!!
dk - You should know better -
...you have violated a prime trader rule - "Never let prior positions influence your judgement". In simple terms - if you have a position, it alters your judgement of the true facts - you will be biased in favor of your position - nobody likes to admit they are wrong - including ME !
GET FLAT - then evaluate your position !
Your Hypothesis is known as "Throwing Good Money after Bad"
... only time, and the weather, will tell if you are right
Bigbizz, I don't know if we have 3 months . . .
You said :
".....I can wait three months...BIGBIZZ"
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=31946
SEVU's nemesis will be turning over several more "cards" this week - "To use a blackjack term", as per your suggested analogy.
If he has Aces, or "picture" cards (no pun intended), the "Dealer" (financial markets) may not allow 3 months to dally around offering "promises" of Blue Skies - especially when financing seems to be an issue - I didn't notice any Letter of Credit in SeaView's "supporting documents" - did you ?
Of course - it's said - "Rich" has been offered a $30MM line of credit (it was laying on his desk, remember ? Is the Xerox machine broke ?), or financing out of his own hip pocket. But did you see evidence of ANY of that in the "supporting documents". Rich could write a Letter of Credit in 15 minutes while sipping ****tails - but did he ? Why not ?
On RB (which, BTW, you badmouth here) you posted:
"...Rich stated..I have arranged a 3 million personal loan to begin moving towards mass production....BIGBIZZ"
http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=SEVU&read=17209
Have you ever heard of a pledge for $3 Million without a shred of paperwork to back it up - not even a dinner napkin ? What kind of pledge is that ? Even a non-profit Org does a little better documentation than that !
Does everybody here have their eyes focused on "Blue Skies" ? Or does anybody look at the (solid) ground to see where their next step will take them ?
EOM
----------------
ASIDE:
This may well be the calm before the (2nd) storm. Others may be looking for a peak from which to add more positions (a normal tactic) - and the price is inching up quite well. Do not revel too long in the recent penny gains - lest they prove to be the last chance to dodge the weather.
How can you get to it with out knowing the address?
He obviously got to it from the link I supplied earlier (which was cached by Google).
But also obviously, their webmaster was instructed to remove the link from the products page - where a surfer customer could actually have access. Apparently, he was too lazy/incompetent to delete the previously linked file altogether.
Do NOT be surprised if this is deleted tomorrow. It's not hard to see where this is going.
Logis-Tech has apparently removed all reference to SecureView
This is what Logis-Tech's Products page looked like last week - this page is "cached" (archived) in Google's database:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.logis-tech.com/html/products.html+logis+tech+products&hl=en
You can see the SecureView link (scroll down), but many of the graphics are dead links because the page was changed today. And naturally, the "hot-link" to SecureView does not work, because the referenced material was deleted.
Now, here's is Logis-Tech's new page today:
http://www.logis-tech.com/html/products.html
It works perfectly, only SecureView is gone. People, this is an intentional modification. This was done by their webmaster today. WHY did this happen ?
Logis-Tech is a key partner, or so claimed. What has changed today ?
WHY did they eliminate SEVU references from their official site ?
IamRetired & SeaHag..Thanx
...for the factual info. Your response is factual and informative.
Best regards,
DD
SeaHag - you are correct - but
there is so much "banter" on the boards, I cannot find the link to a poster that actually had the restricted shares - but that is what he said - they were issued at $0.50 and $2.00 only - nothing in between.
Therefore, none of this selling is "taking losses", rather, it is taking it while it's still a profit. He (they) must think this is at a risk.
Please reply if you know differently.
Regards
FG, If I bid $9, will they fill me at $8 ?
Are you saying that I can bid whatever price to buy 1000 shares of Sevu and they will execute the order at a price that trashes the stock price below today's level - like 7-3/4 ?
Because they want to trash the price ?
Kewl - let me try this tomorrow !
Bigbizz, can I hire you for my PR guy ?
I bet you can say that whole 6 lines of copy in 15 seconds !
Fantastic !!!
You're hired.
G'nite
Truly
Claire, what's happening to you tonight???
Ha-ha, I needed that...Thanx...the link worked very well. Should do it more often !
No real prob now - I feel better
Might've saved 694 characters -
Maybe I was disappointed he jumped in to answer before you had a chance ... don't know if we'll ever know.
Appreciate the response,
Truly
Gotinearly said - "I in no way have any particular knowledge of how SEVU records their books."
Humbly, let me remind you, in your response to me (Post #531) you stated :
"Sales are only reported when orders are shipped, your answer to 3rd qtr revenues is that if shipped it will be included if not it will just be part of the backlog of orders. Revenues and expenses reported for same period."
You then went on to say "I could write novels on this subject".
-----
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=6860
-----
You didn't qualify this as not appling to Sevu. Infact, the tone and impression implied that it fully related to Sevu - reference the words "your answer" (to my question) - Well, my question was Sevu, not some other set of companies out there.
Why did you give me a definitive answer if you had "no idea" whether it applied ? Were you trying to mislead me ? Are you not applying your "general accounting" principles to your own investments ?
Do you think putting 4 letters of the alphabet at the bottom of your post (JMHO) relieves you of all interpretation of what you imply in the preceding 694 characters of your post ?
I think not.
I did not address my original question to you. Why did you volunteer 694 characters of a response which you now say may not even apply in this case ?
Humbly, I ask you, please do not confuse me further with babble that does not relate directly to the topic involved, for whatever your motive or inspiration at the time.
But if you must, at least qualify clearly and plainly at the beginning that it may be totally irrelevant.
I do not wish you to discontinue posting, but rather encourage it. After all, we are all human, myself included - and probably seeking the same goals.
But I come here to try to separate the fact from the fiction - and superfluous statements do no more good than the ranting or raving of the bashers to assist.
Nothing personal - let's just present facts as facts, and qualify each as such.
Truly,
Duly
JMHO (sic)
FG, THANX for the quick reply. It sure is refreshing to get some confirmed information, in such a timely manner. I know that you went out of your way to confirm that those orders were from Dealers, and I appreciate your effort and patience. This type information flow is the real value of these type boards, and I hope it will continue to outweigh the flaming/ranting that sometimes seeps in.
In forming my opinion, it's hard to remain un-emotional with such great products and marketing being put forth. I guess that's why I try to pay some attention to the numbers. In trying to extrapolate what the 3Q and FY will look like on paper (as others here have taken a stab at), the one place I'm at a loss is whether these unfulfilled shipments will be reflected in Revenue, and of course, the associated costs.
Gotinearly seemed to respond in the negative in his post #531 regarding this issue :
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=6860
But he qualified it as just his opinion, so I guess it's not confirmed.
Regards,
Duly
Ender & FG, One-Day Sales Record: $280,800.00
In an effort to replace conjecture with fact, let me humbly correct FG's statement in post # 554, where you said :
"...It seems McBride was referring...to phoned in orders as a result of the advertising/TV commercials..."
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=7153
This statement is directly conflicting with actual text of the PRNewswire, where Christy Mutlu, General Sales Manager, is quoted as saying :
"we calculated 936 units, from my outbound sales team of 10 people.'' The company also utilizes an inbound teleservice."
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=6475
FG, would you be so modest as to stand corrected, and even further, help determine what actually went on here ?
Several other posters have agreed with my original post, so there must be some interest - even though it's hard to follow the successive posts on the subject without "repeating the header".
Regards
FG, I agree with you that there is no point in the double-posting of the same message. I don't recall having done that, but what is left of the record certainly seems to indicate it. I assure you it was not intentional, and I can only surmise that possibly the ALL CAPS posting by Seahag right at about the same time-frame had me partially CAPS-shocked, and cross-eyed trying to read it. Or, I must have had too many windows open.
In any case, I hereby publicly accept all responsibility for the oversight, and will take all measures to prevent a re-occurence in the future. Please accept my apologies.
As far as where the stock is going, that's exactly why I'm here, and I suspect the reason for many of the participants - to gain and share knowledge, and try to get answers to questions. And I don't like distractions any more than you do. Things certainly look bright as per all the recent announcements. I'm just wishing for a little more enlightening financial information.
Regards,
DD
Gotinearly, does this mean "Direct Sales" is not our Primary Channel ?
You said "if 70% of 2nd qtr sales is A/R it could possibly mean that the bulk of then sales occured in last 45 days of qtr."
But then this means that the bulk of our sales are on "terms", as opposed to Direct Sales with Credit Card up-front.