They would be closed at this time today, it is after 5:00 California time

Are you referring to today? California time right now is 11:47am, not "after 5:00".

He won't be endorsing Johnnie's --he's got his own line now, "Junior's Famous Shoes", lol.

There once was a shoemaker named Cory
Who shipped 'Johnnies' shoes in a lorry
But the names were crossed
And the lorry got lost;
Does 'Johnny' know the real story, Cory?

disclaimer: I know Cory's not the shoemaker, but I'm taking poetic license, lol. (Also, for those who aren't familiar, a 'lorry' is another word for a truck.)

What the H just happened? Fell off a cliff-- don't see any news...

I will send 10 100 dollar bills to the first individual who can post a photo (not photo-shopped, either) of a pair of shoes with the brand-name or logo, "Johnnie's Famous" or "Johnnie's F.S.", on this iHub MB. Not acceptable: "JFS", "Johhny Famous", "Johnny F.S", or anything "Johnny".

Of course, there's a caveat: the prize will be in the form of monopoly money.

GLTA

if Fred had some shoes, wouldn't they be Freddie's shoes? LOL

No, k_, they would be Fred's shoes. Now, if Freddie had some shoes, they would indeed be Freddie's shoes.

Same with Johnnie's Famous Shoes versus Johnny Famous Shoes. They are different, and the only 'official' association between the 2 was made (erroneously, imo) in the Ludlow Capital PR.

GL to you.

Kevin-- what you posted is a link to a wonderful promo for Johnny Famous, but note that there is no tie-- stated, or implied-- with Johnnie's.

Ludlow Capital did make the Johnny-Johnnie's connection in their PR, and you can choose to trust Ludlow if you'd like to, but keep in mind Ludlow is a 3rd party promoter, and doesn't necessarily speak for AVTI itself.

Could Ludlow be guilty of mis-representation? I don't know---from their perspective I suppose they can claim it was just an innocent mis-spelling with no nefarious intent.

BTW, I would be delighted to be proven totally wrong.

Good luck.

Yep, and the ONLY connection stated between 'Johnny' and 'Johnnie's' comes NOT from AVTI itself, but from a 3rd party, Ludlow, as liable has previously pointed out. All else ("oh, it's just a mis-spelling," etc.) is presumption, assumption and naiveté, imo. Any proof to the contrary is welcome! That doesn't mean you can't make money on AVTI because it will likely pop at some point imo--but you'll have to be quick on the trigger. GLTA

CL: "NO BUSINESSES FOUND IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK UNDER THAT NAME" Actually, yes, "Johnny Famous Shoes, Inc." is listed when searching that NYS website---sorry if I'm repeating info already posted. GLTY

k- thanks for your links. Yeah, I'm starting to feel a little more at ease about AVTI. It'll be interesting to see what develops in the next month. GLTY

Spunj-- thanks for the link, it's pretty convincing. I'm starting to think I'd better buy some more here. GLTY

jet101 and Lemme-- you guys make good points indeed.

Copyright or trademark infringement is serious business, and if that were the case with 'Johnnie's', obviously they're flirting with (legal) danger, which I agree they (and AVTI) would not be likely to do.

The fact that "Johnnie's" Doran Ramos is stating (in an AVTI-released PR) their shoes will be on the shelves of none other than Nordstrom and the others is pretty compelling, and I have to admit I had not given that statement the weight it seems to deserve.

However, what continues to be troubling to me is the conspicuous absence of the name "Johnny Famous" in the AVTI PR's. I feel like there are two opposing or contradictory things here: first, it has to be assumed logically that Johnnie's wouldn't do something as legally foolhardy as marketing a product so close in name to a competitor. Obviously, trademark/copyright infringement problems wouldn't be worth the risk. However, on the other hand, if Johnnie's Famous Shoes is truly the same as Johnny Famous Shoes, why not incorporate---by reference or stated association---the one with the other in AVTI's PR's? I mean, Johnny Famous Shoes has a nice website, and the shoes look great, so why not take advantage in your company PR? That's what's confusing me.

Anyway, I guess for now I'm going to keep holding, engaging in--- what's the phrase?-- "a willing suspension of disbelief". This is a story I'm anxious to see how it plays out.

Thanks for your points. GLTY

"are you not worried about the typo?" Sorry, but I have to say this, and I'm not trying to bash, just trying to be realistic (I do own some shares and I'm down 50% now)-- IMO, anyone who thinks the "Johnny" versus "Johnnie's" thing is just a typo is naive and mistaken, unfortunately. I don't believe AVTI has anything at all to do with Johnny Famous Shoes. AVTI has a joint venture with Johnnie's Famous Shoes. If there is a single PR produced by AVTI that says anything about "Johnny Famous Shoes", please post the link and I'll be glad to stand corrected. I do not think you can just assume that the two are interchangeable. If that were true, surely you could find a PR--- from AVTI itself, not from some 'research' firm--- that used the brand name, Johnny Famous Shoes. Let's get real here. GL to you.

Ha Ha! Wow, now that's a hilarious image: Borat and his sister dancing in Johnnies. Hey man, don't underestimate the power of markets around the globe. I wouldn't doubt Johnnie's could sell like hotcakes in Kazakhstan or any other 'stan, lol. Maybe they could get Sacha Cohen's autograph!

Semantics? I doubt it. AVTI has not mentioned "Johnny Famous Shoes" in any of their PR's --- they have consistently said "Johnnie's". Please show a link to a PR---from AVTI itself, not a 'research firm'---that shows otherwise.

That aside, it is also true that a couple of weeks ago, on July 27th, Genesis Equity Research released a PR initiating coverage of AVTI, and in it Genesis makes reference to "Johnny", "Johnny's", and "Johnnie's" as though they were interchangeable: http://www.prlog.org/10819090-genesis-equity-research-initiates-coverage-on-avitar-inc-avti.html
However, that's Genesis talking, not AVTI, and it may be here that the confusion started.

Now, Johnnie's may well be a viable brand on its own, and I have no reason to doubt there is a production run of their shoes and that stores (unnamed so far--maybe in Canada? Mexico?) will be stocked with them. However, I have neither found nor seen proof that that business actually involves 'Johnny Famous Shoes'. I can't help but think a lot of people (me included) bought into this assuming 'Johnnie's' was the same as 'Johnny'.

Maybe in the long run it doesn't matter ---however this 'Johnnie's' JV works out for AVTI, all I care about at this point is for their stock to go up. :)

GLTA

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's falling because "investors" are realizing Johnnie's Famous Shoes is not the same thing as Johnny Famous Shoes. Apparently, the one is not the same as the other. As stated consistently in their PR's, AVTI is affiliated with Johnnie's Famous Shoes, not Johnny Famous Shoes. Another interesting fact--Johnny Famous Shoes actually has a nice website and everything, while Johnnie's Famous Shoes does not (anyone want to buy the website, 'johnniesfamousshoes-dot-com'?). If anyone has any conclusive proof to the contrary, please share it with us. I'd love to be proven wrong, as I'm down 40% on this one. GLTY

To me, EVXA sure looks like it wants to close the gap from early June, which would put it close to .001. I'm no TA expert, but I wouldn't be surprised for that to happen in the next week or two-- absent any news or pr's of course, which could totally turn things around. Double down when it bottoms (has it bottomed here?), or sell now and maybe get back in later? Can one believe in this company or not? Questions, questions. Anyway, GLTA

Has anyone commented yet that maybe the volume spike/pps plunge is due those restricted shares (2 billion plus, right?) added to the float? By very rough math, EYSM's float would this have multiplied by over 5.3 or so (470mil to 2.5bil), which very roughly corresponds to the drop in pps from the .007's down to the present. Actually, by that figuring it shouldn't have dropped below .0014, as the inverse of 5.3 is .189 and .189 X .0075 (for example) yields .0014.

Did all those restricted shares just become 'un-restricted'?

Just wondering.... GLTA

Wow, Scottrade showing trades all over the map-- at .02, then suddenly at .002, then .01, then back to .02, now .005 (9:40am).

I'm buying TADF at .021 -- risk/reward ratio seems very favorable right here. JMO and GL

"Reading compression" is something I wish I could learn how to do. Isn't it also known as "speed-reading"?

Humor aside, your point is well-taken. I'm amazed at the extent of ill-informed or non-informed opinion on some of these boards.

GL to all of us.

Thanks for the investopedia link, SPECWARII. I'm not sure how much more clearly it could be explained.

Anyone who had shares at EOD Monday (12th) and sold today (or yesterday for that matter), WILL get the dividend; anyone who bought today thinking they will get the dividend, will NOT.

End of story.

CaptainJim-- Sorry to have to press this point, but you're the one who's mis-informed--I am not spreading lies.
The Artfest press release stated "shareholders of record on April 15, 2010" --that means you would have to have bought the shares in time for the trade to settle, which occurs 3 business days after the trade. Just because the shares show up in your account the moment you 'buy' them doesn't mean that you actually are a registered owner of those shares at that time--you won't be a 'shareholder of record' until the date of settlement. That's the word straight from my broker.
This was addressed Monday as well by others on this board---for example, SkyHigh2 (post 14941, Monday 4/12/10 at 11:53am):
"You need to buy today in order for the trade to be settled on the 15th. If you buy tomorrow, the trade won't be settled until the 16th and you will NOT be a shareholder of record on the 15th."

GL to you

Settlement (ownership) occurs 3 trading days after purchase. That's why 'ex-dividend' date and 'dividend' date are 3 days apart.

"So if I buy at the end of the day, then I would be considered a shareholder of record as of April 15th??" No, you would have to have bought three trading days ago--Monday the 12th--to be considered a shareholder of record today.

Why is SLPO tanking this morning? Info appreciated-- I haven't been able to find any news yet.

jp50, that is way too funny! LOL!

Anyone else double down @ .0009? I did---the smell of panic in the air was just too strong. At any rate, my PPS avg has now improved to .0017, yeah! GLTA

SKGO held .0015 support for days until today--why the breakdown now? I'm tempted to say it looks like it wants to close the gap from a week ago Wednesday (Mar 10th, when it traded at .0011), but I don't know how much faith to put in TA when it comes to the pinks.

to Rom: Not bashing-- just getting to the truth.

to BT: The TA I called is the same TA Coyote has been referring to, the same TA listed as BGOI's agent, and is the TA you could and should take the trouble to call to find out for yourself.

Coyote is absolutely correct in his O/S count postings.

Disclosure-- I'm out of BGOI at the moment--I took a big loss w/ BGOI recently. My motive here is to get to the truth about BGOI's O/S count, and whether BillTaker's assertions have merit. They do not.

I just got off the phone with a representative at Empire (702-818-5898), Bonanza's transfer agent. According to him, BGOI--as of the time of my call (approx 11am PST)---had an O/S count of 323,418,700. The rep said it can change day-to-day. I asked the rep if the information he was divulging was different from info available in SEC filings, and he replied that Empire only issues information that is available to the public. Ergo, the info published in SEC filings isn't necessarily the latest or most currently accurate information available to the public.

So, let's put this argument about outstanding shares to rest shall we? GL to all of you.

There must be some buying pressure-- I just sold a 100,000 all-or-none block at .014, so far the HOD. Now down to 200,000 shares, which I'll hold for a while. BOLTA

Coyote-- thx for the correction, and thanks too for the daily o/s updates.

Wait... more like 17.5mil add'l O/S today, right? 220,152,340 reported yesterday, then 237,652,340 so far today.

Two 357,000 blocks sold at the bid (.0138) within a couple of minutes of each other (2:55pm).... interesting

Triumph got their shares (8.5 million today?) at .0025, so they're definitely not taking a loss... Fortunately, they aren't allowed to own more than 4.99% of the then-outstanding shares at any given time, and they probably don't want to get less than .01 for them, but who knows. I think River's probably right-- they'll dribble the shares out until Weds or Thurs of the week, then let the pps stabilize, then do it again the next week, etc. GLTA

New poster here: "Hello" to the board -- For now, all I see with BGOI is possible scalping opportunities. For example, I just had a 90k purchase go through at .014, hoping to get a point or two before close today. Thanks to all the good posters here! GLTA -