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.
skunks..just Google for 'Aprilia RS50"
:>)
http://www.sportsbikerider.com/pictures.php?type=ars50
well...I suppose I can only 'prove' it's false by the fact that TNN isn't on the air yet, many years after PR's saying 'we launch" came out...that's all. Guess that's not enough...but...who knows..it could actually happen...
of course..all of that is completely covered by the disclaimer at the bottom of every PR. Perhaps all posts on public BB's should have a disclaimer on them as well...
yesterday...the wife and I were watching the news...the stock report came on with the DING DING DING bell...
both greyhounds came running out of the back room with their ears straight up in the air!!! Never seen them do that before :)
re: QBID
"There is no reason other shareholders should be victims of false information, gossip and rumors."
after being in QBID for 4 years of false information, gossip and rumors from those in charge of QBID...this PR takes a lot of guts to send out....
THEN AGAIN...if QBID itself posts anything that can be considered false information, gossip, or a rumor, can WE sue them??? (I'm gonna have to go throught the printouts of the 'we launch soon' pr's from the past 4 years...
Of course, if they can prove that someone IS indeed posting such information, especially soley for the purpose of, say..SHORTING...then, sure...have at it...but..ya know...Legal fees sure are expensive...as a SHAREHOLDER, I can think of better things for QBID to spend its money on.....
like....uhm...paying the satellite fees....
There is no reason other shareholders should be victims of false information, gossip and rumors.
after being here for 4 years of false information, gossip and rumors from those in charge of QBID...this PR takes a lot of guts to send out....
THEN AGAIN...if QBID itself posts anything that can be considered false information, gossip, or a rumor, can WE sue them??? (I'm gonna have to go throught the printouts of the 'we launch soon' pr's from the past 4 years...
Of course, if they can prove that someone IS indeed posting such information, especially soley for the purpose of, say..SHORTING...then, sure...have at it...but..ya know...Legal fees sure are expensive...as a SHAREHOLDER, I can think of better things for QBID to spend its money on.....
like....uhm...paying the satellite fees....
I just hope he's smart enought to charge Frank CASH for his services and not take stock as payment. His credentials are good tho.
I'm gonna hurl if you give Franka bear hug and a smootch if QBID gets on the air.
LOL :)
yeah....3 and 7 for me. 8's a guaranteed. she was amazing.
Gay Advertising is a reality.
Saw a GREAT ad on Bravo tonight during Queer Eye:
http://www.orbitz.com/gaytravel/
No doubt in my mind that whoever gets on the air, the advertisers WILL follow. Wake up, Frank. Get the damn signal on the air.
the key is 'good taste' and NOT making things personal. Leave the personal crap for Raging Bull :)
I'll tone my stuff down and stay more on topic as well.
dg
thanks Mariner. Yeah..I'm pretty sure that Mr. Bush doesn't read ALL his emails (I could make a smart ass comment about his 'computer skills' and him using his CD Drive in his PC for a cup holder..but I won't....) LOLOLOL.
I guess that as I get older, I just wish there were a little more tolerance in the world, all the way around. I especially don't get the stupid sh#) that people do 'in the name of religion'. But..that's the history of mankind, ain't it :)
You'd be surprized how much less of a liberal I've become of late :) Making a really good living will bring out the capitalist republican in anyone...hahaha.
Of course, I'm still a pro-choice tree-hugger...but, then again..like Dennis Miller says when it comes to drilling for oil in Alaska..."F$^@ the carribou".
LOLOL :)
I actually sent a letter to the President today. I"m pretty pissed off about the gay marriage thing...
Dear. Mr President.
As a moderate, heterosexual republican, I must officially voice my deepest concern for today's announcement of your support of constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
I completely understand and respect your spiritual morality and desires to protect the sanctity of marriage, but, in its truest form, the freedom of individual people to become legally bound and married to their life-mates outweighs any one religions beliefs.
How can we as Americans, continue to try and spread freedom and democracy through the world (by the way, I completely support your actions in Iraq and Afghanistan), yet, at home, we practice fear, hate, ignorance, and intolerance???
Indeed, the sanctity of marriage should be protected and we should ban divorce, rather than preventing loving couples involved in deep, committed relationships from expressing their devotion by wedding.
Perhaps a Presidential visit to an Aids hospital, or just a trip to San Francisco to have lunch with a few hundred newly married gay couples could help remind you of the truest Christian values of love and acceptance.
Thank you.
proudly :)
sigh. With all the great things I think Bush has done the past few years, this alone makes me not vote for him again. Guess I'll deal with paying more taxes and Democratic entitlement crap instead.
Bush Backs Amendment Barring Gay Marriage
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
WASHINGTON — President Bush (search) announced his support for a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage on Tuesday morning.
"He has always strongly believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
He said the president wants to end "growing confusion" that has arisen from court decisions in Massachusetts, and San Francisco's permitting more than 3,000 same sex unions.
"The president believes it is important to have clarity," McClellan said.
He said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (search), R-Colo., "meets his principles" in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women.
Sen. Wayne Allard (search) has sponsored similar legislation in the Senate. He expects support for the bill will grow after Bush's announcement today.
But Bush was not expected in his announcement Tuesday to specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation. White House officials say that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.
Bush decided to take action partly because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. That decision could result in gay weddings there as early as May, McClellan said. "We're two months away," he said.
McClellan said 38 states have passed laws protecting the "sanctity of marriage and the president will call on Congress to move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification.
"We need to act now," he said. "The constitutional process will take time."
Fox News' Peter Brownfeld and The Associated Press contributed to this report
Same-sex marriage festivities equal profits
Sales jump at florists, jewelry shops, and liquor stores
By George Lewis
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 8:36 a.m. ET Feb. 24, 2004SAN FRANCISCO - At the Friendly Spirits liquor store in San Francisco's Castro District, store clerk Randy Balch said the champagne has been flying off the shelves.
"We sold 15-20 bottles over the weekend," said Balch, who reckons that's about three times the normal number.
This predominantly gay and lesbian neighborhood is seeing non-stop wedding receptions as the same-sex marriage marathon continues downtown at City Hall.
"There's a lot of horn-honking going on," said Balch, "It's very festive."
It's meant good business for not only liquor stores, but florists and jewelers as well.
Fred Kirkbride, the owner of Brand X antiques, a place that sells old wedding bands among its items, said, "We had the busiest Saturday and Sunday in the history of our store."
Even the city itself has been making money: $62 for the marriage licenses, $82 for an official to perform the ceremony and a $13 filing fee.
Weddings by appointment only this week
But this week, San Francisco city officials scaled back the pace of the same-sex marriages. The rule now: weddings by appointment only and only 60 appointments per day.
About two dozen same-sex couples showed up outside city hall Monday morning, hoping to get in anyway. Instead, they were given a phone number to call to make appointments. People waiting in line soon had cell phones planted against their ears, working their way through the busy signals and the bureaucracy.
Kirkbride said that's changed the atmosphere somewhat. "It was very euphoric, he noted, "but now, it's very tentative."
City officials told NBC News that with same-sex couples traveling from all over the country to be married in San Francisco, normal city business was getting too disrupted to permit hundreds of marriages each day.
By close of business Monday, just over 3,200 same-sex couples had been wed at City Hall, where the words "I pronounce you spouses for life" have been repeated over and over.
Will it all last?
But will it be for life? There's still plenty of uncertainty over whether the marriages will be upheld legally.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are squarely at odds over the issue. The governor warned on NBC's "Meet The Press" that the mayor was setting a bad precedent, disregarding state law that says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Seeking an answer to a deeply divisive question, California’s attorney general plans to ask the state Supreme Court on Friday whether San Francisco’s approval of same-sex marriages violates state law.
Monday’s announcement by Attorney General Bill Lockyer came after San Francisco filed a constitutional challenge to California’s prohibitions on same-sex marriages.
Lockyer, a leading Democrat and potential rival to Schwarzenegger in the 2006 election, agreed immediate action was necessary because of the statewide concern over the issue.
Lockyer told NBC News that he will argue in court that the law must be upheld. But he added he's also trying to end the legal limbo over same-sex marriage.
"People who had these marriages consummated need to know what their status is," Lockyer said, "So everyone will benefit from a quick decision by a court."
Conservative groups have also sued the city, but two judges declined to immediately halt the wedding spree. The next hearing in those cases isn’t scheduled until late March.
As she waited at City Hall for her partner to show up, Kathy Brinson-Wagner said, "They might not uphold our marriages," but predicted same-sex marriage would someday be fully legalized. "Slowly, but surely," she said, "we'll get it straightened out."
Antique store owner Kirkbride agreed that the law will be changed eventually, but added a cynical note. "As many weddings as we're seeing right now," he joked, "A few years down the line, we'll be seeing an equal number of divorces."
© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
Calif. AG seeks ruling on same-sex unions
Attorney general to ask state Supreme CourtThe Associated Press
Updated: 11:55 p.m. ET Feb. 23, 2004SAN FRANCISCO -
California’s attorney general plans to ask the state Supreme Court on Friday whether San Francisco’s approval of same-sex marriages violates state law.
Monday’s announcement by Attorney General Bill Lockyer came after San Francisco filed a constitutional challenge to California’s prohibitions on same-sex marriages.
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged the attorney general last Friday to “take immediate steps” to get a court ruling to make the city stop the gay weddings.
Lockyer, a Democrat, said he agreed that immediate action was necessary because of the statewide concern over the issue.
In 1996, the federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It also permits states to deny recognizing a same-sex marriage in any state. Such laws have been passed by 37 states. Click a state to learn more.
Alabama
Alabama
Marriage law: On its third attempt, a law was passed in 1998 that bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Alaska
Marriage law: A 1996 law banned same-sex marriages. But in 1998 a state judge ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and that the law discriminated against citizens based on sex. As a result, the judge said, the state of Alaska must show a compelling reason for withholding civil marriage licenses from gay couples. Voters later ratified an amendment to the state Constitution banning gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Arizona
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of gay marriages in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: Tucson passed a law in 1997 approving the benefits.
Arkansas
Marriage law: 1997: Anti-Marriage Bill Adopted. Senate Bill 5: Anti-marriage bills passed Senate (1/27) and House (1/22). Signed by Governor Huckabee (R) on February 13.
Domestic Partnership: There are no municipalities offering domestic partner benefits in Arkansas.
California
Marriage law: Californians banned gay marriage on March 7, 2000 by approving a ballot measure that allows the state to recognize only the union between a man and a woman. The emotionally-charged issue was one of 20 addressed by state voters on ballot measures.
Domestic partnership benefits: The entire state has a domestic partnership registry and 29 municipalities offer domestic partnership benefits.
Colorado
Marriage law: Four years in a row, Republican Sen. Marilyn Musgrave introduced an anti-gay marriage bill but it has failed each time. In two previous years, the bill was vetoed by former Governor Romer.
Domestic partnership benefits: Boulder and Denver offer them.
Connecticut
Marriage law: Two attempts to ban gay marriages have failed.
Domestic partnership benefits:
Hartford offers them and a "symbolic" registry that provides no legal or financial benefits.
D.C.
Marriage law: No legislation on the issue has been introduced.
Domestic partnership benefits: There has been no marriage legislation introduced in the District of Columbia.
Delaware
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Florida
Marriage law: On its second attempt, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1997. The bill would also deny recognition to lawful marriages of same-sex couples under all circumstances.
Domestic partnership benefits:
At least five municipalities offer them.
Georgia
Marriage law: An anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1996. The law also declares same-sex marriages from out-of-state as null and void.
Domestic partnership benefits: Atlanta offers domestic partnership benefits and a registry.
Hawaii
Marriage law: In 1998, voters ratified a constitutional amendment that permits, but does not require, the Legislature to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. The state government has yet to act on the amendment. In 1999, three anti-gay marriage bills were blocked.
Domestic partnership benefits: Under the Reciprocal Beneficiaries Law, passed in July 1997, the state of Hawaii offers domestic partnership benefits to employees. The legislation gives same-sex couples the broadest package of rights and benefits ever accorded gay families in the United States.
Idaho
Marriage law: A 1996 law upholds an existing law against same-sex marriages in the state. The law also prohibits the recognition of gay marriages deemed lawful in other states.
Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
Indiana
Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: One municipality offers them.
Illinois
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: Three municipalities offer them.
Iowa
Marriage law: On its third try, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1998. The law also calls for a study of domestic partnerships.
Domestic partnership benefits: Iowa City offers the benefits and has a registry.
Kansas
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages; it was passed without hearings in the House and Senate.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Kentucky
Marriage law: On its second attempt, a 1998 law bans gay marriages and does not recognize same-sex marriages in other states.
Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
Louisiana
Marriage law: An anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1999 after its third attempt.
Domestic partnership benefits: New Orleans offers the benefits and a registry.
Maine
Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages. The governor refused to sign the bill, saying it was unconstitutional, but he allowed it to become law rather than allow a statewide referendum, as proposed by anti-gay groups.
Domestic partnership benefits: Portland offers them.
Maryland
Marriage law: Three attempts to ban gay marriages have failed, as has an attempt to legalize them.
Domestic partnership benefits: Two municipalities, including Baltimore, offer them.
Massachusetts
Marriage law: A bill that would ban gay marriages is pending.
Domestic partnership benefits: Eight municipalities offer domestic partnership benefits, and Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Nantucket and Provincetown have a registry.
Michigan
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: Four municipalities offer them.
Minnesota
Marriage law: On its second attempt, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1997. It prohibits same-sex couples from marrying and does not recognize lawful same-sex marriages from other states.
Domestic partnership benefits:
At least five municipalities offer the benefits.
Mississippi
Marriage law: On its second try, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1997.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Missouri
Marriage law: A 1996 law banned gay marriages but in 1997 the state Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. Another attempt to ban gay marriages in 1999 failed.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them. St. Louis has a registry.
Montana
Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Nebraska
Marriage law: Three legislative attempts to ban gay marriages have failed including a bill in 1999, which was co-sponsored by 23 legislators.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Nevada
Marriage law: No anti-gay marriage legislation has been introduced in Nevada.
Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
New Jersey
Marriage law: A bill that would ban gay marriages is pending. Three previous bills failed.
Domestic partnership benefits: Gloucester County offers non-health benefits.
New Hampshire
Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
New Mexico
Marriage law: In 1999, anti-gay marriage legislation was defeated for the fourth year in a row. The Mormon Church lobbied heavily for passage of the legislation, sending $30,000 to supporters of the bill.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
New York
Marriage law: Four legislative attempts to ban gay marriages have failed. The latest attempt in 1999 sought to void same-sex couple's lawful marriages if they return, come to, or travel through New York.
Domestic partnership benefits: Six municipalities offer them and three - Ithaca, New York City and Rochester - have a registry.
North Carolina
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages, and 12 counties do not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: At least six municipalities offer them.
North Dakota
Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages and doesn’t recognize marriages out of state for same-sex couples.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Ohio
Marriage law: Two legislative attempts to ban gay marriages have failed; the latest attempt was made in 1998.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Oklahoma
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. It also bans gay couples from adopting children or caring for foster children.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Oregon
Marriage law: An effort to ban gay marriages failed in 1997, and an effort to pass a constitutional amendment failed in 1999. The proposal in 1999 would have also attempted to overturn a court decision forbidding discrimination based on sex in health benefits and other protections.
Domestic partnership benefits: At least six municipalities offer them.
Pennsylvania
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and does not recognize same-sex marriages in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: Two municipalities offer them, and Philadelphia has a registry.
Rhode Island
Marriage law: A bill is pending that would legalize and allow for same sex marriage in Rhode Island. It is the only pro-same sex marriage bill to have a hearing in the country.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
South Carolina
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of gay marriages in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
South Dakota
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages; it was passed on its second attempt.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Tennessee
Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Texas
Marriage law: Two years in a row, Republican Sen. Warren Chisum introduced an anti-gay marriage bill but it failed to advance out of committee.
Domestic partnership benefits: Travis County offers non-health benefits and a registry.
Utah
Marriage law: A 1995 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
Vermont
Marriage law: Civil unions allowed
Domestic partnership: Full benefits granted under state law
Virginia
Marriage law: On its second attempt, a law was passed in 1997 banning gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: Arlington County offers the benefits.
Washington
Marriage law: On its third attempt, a law was passed in 1998 that bans same-sex marriages and prohibits the recognition of gay marriages deemed lawful in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: At least seven municipalities provide the benefits and Seattle offers a domestic partner registry.
West Virginia
Marriage law: Four attempts to ban gay marriages, the latest in 1999, have failed.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Wisconsin
Marriage law: Three attempts to pass an anti-gay marriage bill failed; the latest attempt was made in 1998.
Domestic partnership benefits: Some six municipalities offer domestic partnership benefits and one has a registry.
Wyoming
Marriage law: Two attempts to ban gay marriages have failed. The latest attempt in 1997 failed to advance past the Labor, Health and Social Service Committee. The first attempt in 1996 failed to receive enough votes for introduction.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Source: LAMBDA • Print this
“The people of California who have enacted laws that recognize marriage only between a man and a woman, and the same-sex couples who were provided marriage licenses in San Francisco deserve a speedy resolution to the question of the legality of these licenses,” Lockyer said.
More than 3,000 same-sex couples have been married since San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom decided to give out the licenses Feb. 12.
Timeline Marriage rights battle
Key turns in fight over unions for same-sex couples
1989
Denmark becomes the first nation to legally recognize same-sex unions, offering "the same legal effects as the contracting of marriage." Half a dozen European countries begin moving in the same direction.
1996
A court in Hawaii overrules a previous state ban on gay marriage, sparking a national debate on the subject.
1996
The U.S. House and Senate overwhelmingly pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a bill denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages and giving states the right to refuse same-sex marriage licenses from other states and deny benefits associated with marriage. President Bill Clinton signs the bill. Some 38 states have since adopted similar state legislation.
2000
Vermont creates a new legal relationship status called a "civil union," allowing same-sex couples to obtain all of the rights, responsibilities and benefits available through marriage within the state of Vermont, becoming the first state to do so.
April, 2001
Netherlands: Gay and lesbian couples who are Dutch are allowed to marry and adopt with the full privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. The law offers the most sweeping rights to same sex couples in the world. By 2002, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, France and Switzerland have all adopted laws allowing registration of same-sex unions, with most or all of the rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples.
May, 2003
Rep Marilyn Musgrave, (R-Colo.) and five cosponsors introduce HJ Resolution 56, the Federal Marriage Amendment, a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. The Senate follows suit with its own resolution in November. The amendments state that no state or federal law "shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
June 2003
The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a Texas law prohibiting same-sex sodomy. By removing criminal implications for private consensual sexual acts, the ruling changed the legal landscape for an array issues concerning same-sex couples, including the right to marry.
June-July, 2003
The Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia begin allowing same-sex couples to marry, and obtain full rights of marriage under Canadian law, following a court decision that the law on traditional marriage is unconstitutional.
November, 2003
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that it is a violation of the state constitution to bar same-sex couples from marriage. The first legal marriages for same-sex couples are due to take place in May.
February, 2004
Massachusetts lawmakers debate amending the state constitution to define marriage as a union only between a man and woman. This amendment, if passed by lawmakers, could only appear on a ballot for voter approval in 2006. By the start of this debate, 21 states had introduced or were expected to introduce similar state constitutional amendments.
Source: MSNBC Research • Print this
Conservative groups have also sued the city, but two judges declined to immediately halt the wedding spree. The next hearing in those cases isn’t scheduled until late March.
The Campaign for California Families has argued that the weddings harmed the 61 percent of California voters who in 2000 supported Proposition 22, a ballot initiative that said the state would only recognize marriage between a man and a woman as valid.
Related news
Battle joined over same-sex marriage
Newsom, a Democrat, maintains that he is following the state Constitution.
Live Vote
Do you support legalization of same-sex marriage?
Yes
No
Vote to see results
Live Vote
Do you support legalization of same-sex marriage? * 92779 responses
Yes
50%
No
50%
Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
“Mayor Newsom is upholding the state Constitution, which explicitly outlaws discrimination of any kind,” spokesman Peter Ragone said. “We believe the city’s actions are both lawful and a recognition of the love that many couples share.
“The bottom line is the legal process is working and those who would suggest otherwise do so only for political gain. We believe we are upholding the constitution. Others may disagree. We look forward to the court’s ruling.”
Lockyer said the Supreme Court is under no deadline to accept the case or make a ruling.
© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
FASC: finally :)
First American Scientific Corp (FASC - OTCBB) announces sale of KDS Micronex equipment to Atlas Mining Company (ALMI - OTCBB)
February 23, 2004 09:30:00 AM ET
VANCOUVER, Feb. 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - Brian Nichols, President of First American Scientific Corp. (FASC) is pleased to announce the sale of a KDS Micronex System to Atlas Mining Company (ALMI) which will be used for the processing of halloysite clay at their Dragon Mine site in Juab County, Utah. In addition, FASC and ALMI have formed a strategic alliance to bring technical support and advice for optimizing the processing of its clay and to designate FASC as the core supplier of grinding and drying equipment for ALMI's mining operations.
Atlas Mining Company is a diversified natural resources company with its primary focus on the development of the Dragon Mine in Juab County, Utah, the only known commercial source of halloysite clay outside of New Zealand. The purity and quality of halloysite from the Dragon Mine is unmatched anywhere in the world and has spawned considerable research into new applications for this unique product. According to Bill Jacobson, President of Atlas Mining "with the relationship between Atlas and FASC, we can be assured of the quality controls we need to provide the best possible product to our customers will be put in place. The tests we have run to date processing our halloysite clay through the KDS Micronex in Vancouver has resulted in positive feedback from our potential end users."
First American Scientific Corp is the owner of a unique patented disintegration system, the KDS Micronex System, which is capable of reducing and drying various grades of mineral rock such as halloysite clay, zeolite, gypsum and limestone into a fine dry powder suitable for this and numerous other industrial applications. Other applications for the KDS include converting biomass and agri-waste, including animal waste, sewage, and forestry waste into a fine dry combustible fuel which can be burnt in specialized dust burners to create BTU's and energy. Please refer to our web site for further details.
Certain information and statements included in this release constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
C. Kantonen, Chairman
FASC: (NASD Bulletin Board) Web Site: www.fasc.net
Call Corporate Communications Toll Free: 1-800-561-8656
© 2004 PRNewswire
...and you will also be grumpy, and have people put dead fish in your SUV.
ROTFLMAO!
LOLOL.
BUT..if someone is smart, perhaps a few of the openly gay Legislators could show up...
I agree with a national sales tax.
I don't like the Green Party. We NEED government.
Yes...I understand the marriage tax issues. I'm happy about getting a bit of a break now that I -AM- married, instead of living in sin :)
I'm quite happy I don't have kids or grandkids. I made the decision NOT to breed many, many years ago. There's plenty of unwanted children that need to be adopted. I don't need a carbon copy of myself.
But, with no kids, I keep all my money and will retire quite nicely and in comfort, paying people to take good care of me :)
and....QBID has to get it's salespeople working NOW.
I'm with ya Jarvis..but being forced to vote for Bush just pisses me off. At SOME point, the Repubican party (who, 80% of the time, have the right idea about how people should live their lives without govt intrusion and being taxed to death), is just going HAVE to realize that they can NOT continue to try and legislate morality.
I'm with you guys. I can't even fathom ONE legitimate reason why gays shouldn't be allowed the social, tax, and insurance benifits of legal marriage. Every opposing veiwpoint has been religiously based, and hold NO water in my mind.
..my wife owns her own small business. Every year, 43% of her income goes to taxes. There's NO incentive for her to be successful. Don't even get me started on 'death tax', capital gains..blah blah blah.
this country is in a MESS, and the drastic polarity between the two parties is the cause. MIDDLE GROUND and common sense are the only things that will get us through. BEING RESPONSIBLE for one's own actions is paramount. If you really need help, the govt should help you. If you keep squirting out children you can't pay for, you're on your own.
{off soapbox now before I really get riled up...}
http://www.livejournal.com/community/twin_cities/517426.html#cutid1
In the spirit of Valentines day. I love this.
rotflmao.
gee thanks...Ya LIKE pouring salt into old wounds???? I'm sooo long gone out of this thing. But I'll pop in once in a while to visit.
:)
yeah...a few 16's tossed in there for giggles as well...I dunno..I might just wait it out....Got a few other things to toss $ at this week instead.
I disagree with you a little bit about the TW stuff tho...I think the demand IS indeed there, and if/once the signal really is up on the bird, and IF TTN gets some kick butt salespeople, market demand should indeed drive TW to offer it.
I think one of the consequences of 'tit gate' is that a good portion of America (except for the far far right-ists who can't even stant to see THEMSELVES naked), actually have a 'whatever/get over it/ it's just a boob" attitude about it.
I know I certainly do. Personally, I'm more offended watching the talentless gangstas grabbing their crotch all the time and flashing their lame-ass bling-bling homey rides. Sheeeesh...Learn how to play a freakin instrument and learn how to SING, would ya?
yeah..we'll see if I can get filled at .0017...might even bid it at .0015 the way the freakin market is going today..gonna be an ugly one, I think.
I think the board was opened because Mr Hollen and I were reminiscing about the old ECNC days..and he found out that ECNI was still alive and well, even with Mr. Hughes in jail.
Hard for me to believe it's still valid...I'm still sad it didn't happen 4 years ago when it would have been revolutionary. Now..I think the cashpad thing is just passe'.
but..ya never know :)
ROTFLMAO. Fluffer :)
Yeah..pretty fluffy PR, but, it's still better than nothing. Simply mentioning the TW 'agreement' is encouraging to me, IMVHO, becuase if there wasn't an agreement, TW would have his ass in a sling for saying there was.
"Meeting their strict requirements"...obviously..no gay porn. It remains to be seen what the quality of the TNN shows will be.
I'll look to buy back in if it keeps dropping. I'm cautiously optomistic...after 5 years, this is actually kind of encouraging..sort of...
and to what do we owe these wise words of wisdom from someone who's been here for a week or so?
News that we don't know yet?
Pretty safe to say that those of us that have been here awhile know when to take our profits and when to sit on freebie shares...don'tcha think?
still...I wait to see if QBID will cry wolf a few more times...
uhm..old news. Try to contain yourself ;)
I'm shocked and amazed.
It's too late, I'm afraid. Pretty much all brokers let you fund your account directly via bank to bank payments (just like paying your credit card bill online). Security online is significantly more secure that it was a few years back when ECNC was supposed to ship the cash pads.
nice to see Jensen is still involved :)
looks nice, JC
ROTFLMAO. Nicely done.
gee..think the 48000 trade was a signal to lower?? :)
11:35:16 AM Trade 0.0022 2000000
11:34:50 AM Trade 0.0024 48000
all in all, it's a good thing. Time to level the field a bit.
HAHAH john...gotcha.
:)
JC...does that include OTC and Pinkies??
SHOCKING NEWS OUT:
no PR today.
why am I not surprized :>)
It's Tuesday. Where's the highly touted NEWS????
jim...read up on freetrade.com. I think you'll like what you see. I'm anxious to get started with them.