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.
STW, as I have previously stated, I am not personally offended by the "word" fat, nor am I personally sensative as to the derogatorive inference that it connotates. The whole episode you are making about me removing your post only seems to be affecting you. As I pointed out when you questioned me was I felt that some posters "might" be offended by your reference. There certainly wasn't any ambiguity in my mind that your anologist comments could be hurtful to some. It's that simple, really. It's over and done and I don't feel the need to rehash my reasonings behind either your actions or mine. This will be the last time that I will post any reference to this incidence. Get over it, or if you can't, bring it to the attention of either IVRT or Matt.
Dnaowner, as I previously posted, I think it would be in everyones best interest if you prefaced your statements w/ the indications that "you believe" the posters are shorting DnaPrint Genomics.
By the way, I believe they are also.
STW: I didn't pull your post for using the "word" fat, but for the derogatory, insultive deffinition you were using to discribe a person. I don't find it offensive to say the 'fat is in the fire,' etc. I guess you just don't get it.
I will also request Dnaowner to quit making blatant acquisations of individuals , though I tend to believe that he may be on to something, in general. Actually, I will ask him to phrase it w/ the prefice of, " I believe."
As to the aiding a abieting aspect, I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but seeing as how there is a polarization between Longs and those that tend to bash this Company, my sympathies are certainly with the Longs, for which I am a proud monitor of this Board.
chrisbaskett,bag8ger; I guess all I can say to this last post is that Matt indicated that he was open to others applying for the job of moderator on this board.
I am sorry to hear that you believe my involvement has been ineffectual here. I have no intention of leaving, nor do I feel the need for absolution. I will acknowledge that I have been "twixed & between" concerning a couple of posters, yet considering the constraint of the rules and "fairness" I allow posters to present their opinion, though I disagree wholeheartedly about what they say sometimes.
golf, I don't think anything would please me more than to see a serious run up by DNAG. We certainly saw a 300% increase a few years ago and I doubt that there was much of a short possition at that time. Pure speculation on my part, but a tantalizing picture, to be sure.
In a just world, one would think that the "shorter's" would have to cover their bets at some point in time, so why not now? I believe that most here just want a level playing field.
I can certainly see where a decline would be justifiable were it that DnaPrints Science were to be proven unadoptable in personalize medicine, which isn't the case. As Dr. Frudakis stated early on, the cracking of eye color was the more difficult operation than determining patient response. Was this statement far fetched? I think not.
eb0783, I recognize the fundamental difference between shorting and naked shorting, and those that would participate in the later. I consider naked shorting as a criminal enterprize, on par w/ robbery or embezzelment. Ill gotten gains are essentially "rotten fruit" which corrupts the core of an individual. The damage is not irrepairable, but certainly weakens the character.
As I have previously stated to all, I have spent many years in the penitentiary for crimes committed as a youth and adult, so can attest w/ a certainty the composite of individuals who's ill reputed gain brings about lassitude and languishing. I am sure Miss Scarlett would appreciate the refernce to the Scripture where it states that those that seek to trap will fall into their own pit. I can only wish that it happens sooner rather than later for "naked shorters" of DnaPrint Genomics.
STW, I believe you have capsulize a pertinent aspect of what the Longs here have a problem w/ in regards to some who post their doom and gloom when you say, "I wonder if a "basher" is someone who predicts and warns of the coming devastation from dilution?" I have no doubt that there are a few like stocky who have been burnt in this "pennyland" pinch which has occured, myself included. As an early investor who has held long, I admit that it wasn't the best move I could have made, but it serves my purpose. I bought something that I felt had value and it still may have. What is onerus is the fact that a few find it necessary to discribe the merit of DnaPrint as worthless and beyond redemtion. You have to understand that this is a "possession" we have paid for and are protective of, hence the the term basher implies - someone who would dash the hopes of others and obtain some form of satisfaction. This is the part of human nature that I personally find incomprehensible. Others, like ARCH, are more prone to retaliate and "set awright" a perceived wrong by denegration.
Anyway, I don't speak for all and this is my perception at this time. Who knows, the SEC may come down on "naked shorters", or the Gabriels and Dr. Frudakis may deliver an anouncement of Bankruptcy, but it's all speculation a grist for the mill, I suppose. I, personally prefer to maintain a possitive attitude, knowing that one seldom enjoys something without sacrifice.
DorseyE, you know, I have been around for quite some time and it is my opinion that this stock has been manipulated to the max, by many. frog tantalizes us w/ the possiblility that it is an inside job; then there are those who come here and defend the most obnoxious basher I have ever had the unpleasantness of reading. Personally, I am past caring just who should be faulted, because I am of the opinion that in the long run only the scientific validation matters, and I fully expect that it will in due time.
DNAG is on the SHO list, and as such is being shorted, and in my opinion those that are shorting DnaPrint hopes the company closes it's doors so as to reap the ultimate reward of never having to pay for their profits.
All of the Longs that I have come in contact w/ have reasonable expectations that the science the Dr. Frudakis purported in the early years would come to fruition and have denounced those that caste dispurencies on any advancement this company has made. It is apparent that there is a very vocal group of individuals who would gleefully grind any optomism into oblivion.
Personally, I refuse to get caught in a debate that might enhance their desperate attempt to define a company they can't control. They live on the perifery w/ their ineffectual intruding rant. I no longer wonder what their purpose for being here is, as it really has no bearing on the constructs of DnaPrints business model, nor can they really have much impact on the company itself.
Take care and rest easy.
STW, I don't have a list of singlular words that I find offensive. As a matter of fact, I swear quite fluently and frequently on my own time, so am not a person easily offended. My job here is to try and keep the board civil and on topic w/out rocking the boat too much. It was only a few weeks ago that Matt gave us more latitude in determining what should be removed from the board. I don't feel I am heavy handed, nor feel it necessary to define myself here, other than to say that I am a Long Term Investor of DnaPrint Genomics and was asked to participate as a moderator.
My job isn't to control or direct the flow of information that is posted here, but I do keep in mind that the sensabilities of some may be offended by crassness, belligerence, or continual negativity and attempt to keep the badgering at a minimum as I find it non-productive.
I am not personally disturbed by anyones stated opinion, nor will I get pulled into a debate over a non-issue,as I see it.
I state again, if you have a problem w/ me as a moderator, take it up w/ Matt, or IVRT.
dr frudaky, you are pretty much singing to the "choir" here, LOL I would sincerely hope that no one buys or sells based on anything present on these boards w/out doing their DD.
many7's, I, too, am impressed w/ the Managements present ability to formulate this new side of DnaPrint Genomics. When one considers the "testing" company it used to be six years ago to the present, with the constant pressure of financial need to "split it's pennies" in an effort to procure the "acknowledgable staff" it has now, along w/ the growing acceptance w/in the medical community as referenced by the affiliations of Moffitt, Harvard, etc., then, with an open mind one can conclude that this Company, with it's immense talent will one day prosper and be accredited w/ "The Gold Standard" it has sought all along.
I am of the opinion that this latest buying spree is of "Long" investors who will hold their shares for the subsequent "obscene profits" to be had from DnaPrints Pipeline.
I have seen the share price run "three fold" in a few days, then retract due to lack of progress reporting from the company. I do not think management will allow this to happen again.
This company has credible science and is poised to utilize it's unique computational plateform that can accelerate the "trials" by correctly assesing thru Bayesian Theory a Theranostic approach to treatment vs metabolic toxicity.
STW, when you talk about constitution rights you might want to re-evaluate the purpose of this board. I jerked your post due to it's derogatory comments about people of weight, which had absolutely nothing to due about DnaPrint Genomics.
Posting on this board is a priviledge that a number of posters seem to be abusing all too regularly. I personally find it onerus sifting thru the repetative claims of innocent, demured disclaimers that both sides throw up to incite further reason to discredit others.
If you feel I am heavy handed, or one sided in my editing, please take it up w/ Matt for a review of your personal postings.
Easy
I really wonder what's under that rock, frog. Have the early investors been duped by DnaPrint, or has there been a concerted effort by some to discredit the science. We poor ignorants can only read into that which is revealed by Managements manuevers of latest acquisitions, having limited understanding of the science involved. What does disturb me is that if this is just a bunch of fake's fostering a scam to keep them in the chips, why would such notable insitutions like Harvard & Moffitt be instruments of credidation to the bogus.
I am content to believe that po folk like myself might misread the fundamentals involved, but these others are surely not dupes. Could it be that the evolution just hasn't caught on and some would prefer to limp along w/ outmoded programs?
Dnaowner, as presented by bag8ger and those who have been here for endless years, I have to agree that our present value has been damaged by "shorter" and MM Manipulators, etc.
This downward leveraging has been noted for many years. It was "Tis" that first brought it to the Boards attention, if I am not mistaken. I am not only attesting to the "painting of the tape", but I personally remember w/ agast the numerous times where the price didn't move upwards on 100k buys, yet took a dump on a measely 5k sell; over and over and over. What's up with that? This, of course, took place 3 to 4 years ago and I thoroughly believe our present state is attributable to those early factors. Knight was more invovled at that time, if I recall. We were also on the Pinks. What a ride.
Dnaowner, I am wondering about the o/s of 30million shares a month being put into the float since the r/s, as acknowledged by those who are more intuned to it than myself.
A quick calculation indicates that that equals to about $540K if you were to use .018 as an average, which I think would be at the low end of the selling price.
Now to me, I don't see where this amount of money is necessary for operational costs, so it must have been used to do the purchasing of Trace, Kenna and Ellipse, etc.
Of course, one must take into consideration the 4% discount to Duchess and other cost incurred in the transaction, but this still leaves a staggering amount of cash left on the table to be used for what?
The shares and subsequent value must be accounted for somewhere in DnaPrints filings, right? I am not the accountant type, so would appreciate those that are more adept at this to "hand feed" me. LOL
wrl, they have to hang their hat on something. Actually, considering the negative posters we have, I am sure that they will find something more original, except for dr.frudaky who will probably continue to talk about the depressed sp.
Mr. One Note.
chris, he'll have to change his signature from "alwaysnonstop" to something else. LOL
After 5+ years I now believe we will see a substainable increase in shareholder value. Much like Jeveer, yet different, my crystal ball foretells a mustering of formitable designs that indicates a growth pattern, not the meteoric rise w/ subsequent fall back we have all become use too, but a progressive upward tic.
I am sure those in opposition to DnaPrints' success, as truly the bashers are, though they indicate only their objective analysis and factual representation, tempered w/ altruistic endeavors, will obsessively demean any and all potential this Company shows.
I have held off making predictions, for the most part, but now feel comfortable enough to acknowledge the onslaught of naysayers willing to confront my predilictions. To them, I say," patooee!"
Basically, DNAPrint has been a R&D Company w/ an offering of some products to offset it's finacial needs. Yes, this company has sold a substantial amount of shares to keep it's doors open. Unlike some here, I am unwilling to believe they have "Sold" us down the river. They still own everything, exclusively and are adding to their capabilities as demonstrated by a 3X's generating factor resentely announced which indicates their ability to contract out w/ what has been proven to be a high degree of "certainty."
The wave of products soon to be released from the pipeline is a testament to their expansionistic approach. Couple this w/ the notable scientific minds that have decided to "hitch" up w/ Dr. Frudakis, and you have an awesome vehicle poised to becoming a prime participant in personalized medicine thru it's innovative approach of determining ancestery mapped SNP's that contribute to drug response and toxicity.
Hey, this is just my read for this morning.
frog, from your post and past conversations I take it that at one time you were invested in DnaPrint Genomics. You have made it abundantly clear, atleast in part, as to why you are critical of Dr. Frudakis, and this latest post reveals much of your viewpoints as to Managements "shareholders philosophy."
I like to give credit when deserved, and you demostrated, in this last post, an anology I truly enjoyed and, to a degree, feel you have captured a certain essence. Very provoking.
What intrigues me, laying personalities aside as to the parties involved, is what you initially considered worthy in DnaPrint and if there might be some redeemable (profitable) qualities left in the cubbords, or is this Company bereft of benefits?
In my opinion, the Golden Standard is emphasised in this latest PR, though I am sure DnaPrints approach is obvious to all who have been following the ongoing metamorphis that is occuring. I use this word in context to what was originally stated by Dr. Frudakis early on when he talked about 'bringing shelved drugs back to market.'
Our DRUG LINE w/ be coupled to those patients who will best respond to the particular regimine and product we will be marketing to. Yes, it will be a more limited market, but that will be offset by excluding those individuals who would be adversely affected. Isn't this what Theranostics is all about? Do the test, prescribe the drug to those that fit within the perameters of responders. I truly believe that our advantage lies within the ability to initially group thru ancestry markers a more advantageous structure. It is spelled out, folks, and the Large Pharms don't got it....get it? Their in house genetisist have drawn a blank and DnaPrint has the Aces in this regards.
Dr Dew, my understanding was March, '06. Another thing of interest to me is the $196K "loan" by Dr. Frudakis to BioFrontera that was reported back when the intitial 51% purchace was reported. Not that it has anything to do w/ DnaPrint, other than Tony indicated he was impressed w/ the compounds in their portfolio that he had been unaware of.
I personally was all set to see DnaPrint expand over in Europe w/ the ties that BioFrontera has w/ PharmEco. Our possession may have been minimalized, yet all the contacts are still in place and I can see an exchange going forward. Exactly what that will be comprised of, I have no idea, not being privy to the board room, LOL, but this was not purely an investment vehicle, of that you can be sure of.
SaveTheWorld, after coming home from work to read the interesting interchange held on the board bespeaks of the "originality" of composition in my earlier post.
By the way, I have edited the rigid recriminancy remarks by deletion. LOL
I wasn't talking to posting the same thing twice, though even if a post weren't a "duplicate" post, I would view it as such, especially in the same day, etc.
No, I was trying to indicate that we would all benefit from some "fresh" ideas that didn't include recriminations, etc., and I got it in full measure today, thanks to those who participated.
Good Morning; I logged on to see that Matt had been here at work since I logged off last night, so this community is being monitored for it's fractiousness, which I hope in the future will subside to a reasonable debate on differences.
It is apparent to me that most everyone here is contentious concerning some impune; past or perceived. It is almost becoming a topic in itself, compounding in it complexity of never ending inuendo. I have read enough to recognize that most everyone here is verbally competent enough to originate discussion that validates their point w/out it reflecting on a previous post. Let's try that.
Take the time to back out of an immediate reply and initiate a new message post found at the top of the list. This might give you the refrain to compose a response that is comprised to originality vs rigid recriminancy. One can try, eh?
Cosmic, in reference to your question about whether or not I would prefer individuals to excercise "TOS" than ignore, I would have to defer that particular question to either IVRT or Matt, as "TOS" violations are not sent to me in any form and so I would be unaware of a particular posters agreivement. I do have a "mailbox", and as some here can attest, when I get a request for personal attention, I take action to see the problem resolved. The one thing I would not want to see is a disfunctional system and hope that this doesn't occur.
I think that your comment, "The key is....intent...not content." is insightful and deffinately the key to the issue at hand, along w/ accountability. Your paticipation has been constuctive and we all appreciate the depth of involvement w/ your "line developement". Not all of us are so inclined, so your contribution should be recognized in this regards.
Wow, I took the day off, seeing it was a Sunday, to watch the Cinderella Man, and came back to find that the real whirlwind occured in my absence.
I am appreciative of Matt's latitude. What to me was troublesome, when reviewing the posting, was the attempt by some to create consternation, yet stay within the framework of the regulations agreed upon when registering to post here.
For quite some time, there has been some here who have asked for a more resoluteness in diciphering that which is meant to be of value to the readers and that which is inflamitory. Perhaps a corner has been turned and participation will become more valuable to us all.
dr. frudaky, it is well documented that I have a personal problem w/ the way that management has performed over the past couple of years in regards to the share price we are currently at. I find it especially frustrating that prior to the r/s it was indicated that there were "tools" still to be implimented that would reverse the downward pressure, or atleast stablize it. On the other hand, one could say that were the "tools" available at the time, then there wouldn't have been a need for the r/s to begin with.
There are not any foregone conclusions, to be sure. I doubt anyone here fully understands the meaning of why we bought out Trace and Ellipse and how this will improve the future of DnaPrint Genomics. Time will tell. One thing I will point to is the involvement w/ BioFrontera. I wish we had concluded the 51%, rather than the current 18%, but that being said, we are looking at a substantial amount of capital if the present indicators of the IPO are realized. That being said, I am still convinced that the Science being worked out still has the potential to establish this company as the Gold Standard.
It is apparent to me that some of RB's resident bashers are starting to appear over here w/ their spitefull commentary that is comprised of one liners meant to be disparaging and disruptive. This Board has it present share of critic's, so I want to ask the permanent residents to be willing to vocalize their wishes directly to either IVRT, Theo, or myself if the clutter becomes distractive and disruptive. It would be better to not respond in kind, as this justifies their continued presence, atleast in their own minds.
I personally will remove any post that is only there to elict an emotional outburst and doesn't contain viable content worth discussion.
In one of the recent postings about "naked short sellers" it dawned on me just why we have a cadre of individuals who fervently continue to 'bash' DnaPrint Genomics. I am not including everyone who posts negatively in this category, but just those who seem to have an agenda.
As DnaPrint was again placed on the SHO list for shares that "failed" to be accounted for, this bears consideration and I personally would appreciate your response on the subject.
OK, here is the gist of it. If shares were sold short that hadn't been "bought", or recorded to the individual at a specific time and price, it appears that, and here I am somewhat confused, but the "buy" price could be affixed by the regulatory agency at a dissadvantaged price to said individual, hence the "need" for them to ensure that the Company goes out of business so they never have to cover. Confusing, yes, but I think there is something to this. Anyway, my two cents for the morning.
Grateful, again, I don't think this is a timid knock on the door. The ethical debate is far outweighed by the benefit being deduced in the Theranostic arena. Tony has carved out a knitch and his area of expertise is becoming more recognized in the Pharmacuetical market. Go Tony.
Grateful, I have no doubt but this hearkens back to when Tony made his statement about hand held devises that could/would be able to determine "identiy" w/in 50'. We all know that DnaPrint works closely w/ the FBI and it isn't much of a stretch to comprehend eye color heredically by transmission or even Photofitting by inference of DNA, which ties into 3D imaging. This is the Buck Rogers stuff of the 21st Century.
NICKOFTIME; members have the ability/option of ignoring selected posters w/ whom they have difficulty. I use this feature extensively on RB and find that the content of posts I have available is more to my liking. I believe that there are those who are contentious, choose to contradict, misconstue and cause consternation for personal enjoyment. The irony of it is that these individuals are usually quite intellegent and are adept at working the boards. Whether or not they are paid for this is questionable, but one thing is for certain, they seem to garner alot of attention by those willing to respond in anger.
Virgil, thanks for your imput about Arch's posting. I believe you have "hit the nail on the head" in this regards. Although I do not read all of the articles through that he brings here and on the other boards, I find that there is relevancein the connections he is drawing.
Hope you are having a good weekend. Take care.
NICKOFTIME; sometimes all there is to eat is leftovers.
Ann's DD "IS" profitable to those who have recently arrived to this forum and provides the "newbies" a fast track catch-up approach. I don't find her style of posting info to be a distraction and, in fact, have been rewarded w/ further understanding of conditions I was unaware of.
I have taken a more "hands on" approach in respects to members who's posts only intended purpose is only to cast dispersive sentiment on other members. Todate, I have not been called to task by IVRT in how I discipher such. My rule of "thumb" is whether a response is directed towards the message, or the member, and one might also consider the productivity vs banality of critisism.
I hope this answers your question. There are many Longs here, who, like myself have difficulty in perceiving why some posters beleagure (spelling?) a point so as being obtuse, and in some cases, where it becomes disruptive, Matt has a solution. I don't mean to offend, but provide an enviornment to meaningful discussion.
Cosmic, now I am having a good laugh. If one were to go back a ways to a previous post I made about a year ago, you would find where I was making a point of Bayesian vs Gregorian. If I am not mistaken, I posted on the day dedicated to the late Pope Gregory.
OK, so I am patting myself on the back. LOL Anyway, the point of this message is that Ol' Stewball; Dr. Frudakis, got it right on this point, anyway, and only confirms my belief that we are pitted against an established protocal that is twisting in the wind right about now. The accuracy of ADMIXMAP has been proven "to a certainty" and in due time I firmly believe that DnaPrint's propriatary technology WILL get it's due recognition. Old patterns die hard and and especially the clinicians who can't render a better, faster, safer approach w/ an outdated method circle and "anathema" becomes the catch phrase. LOL
I may very well NOT personally derive wealth from this investment due to my early initial possition, but it is in my "guts" that Tony "got it right".
Luck to the Longs.
Ann, from the article, I can see a couple, if not a few area's of involvement that DnaPrint can capitalize on w/ the billion dollar allocation refered to.
It is my personal belief that we have seen the worst of it and this is the year that our fledgling company will start to turn the corner and we will see a rising share price as our long awaited products come to market. Although I don't expect Management to show an immediate reversal to profitablility, I do think that with revenue coming in, our project w/ Beth Isreal will be more inviting to Large Pharma and we will be able to make a "sweeter deal" w/ those who would market and deliver this product. Even though it is many years down the road, I can't conceive how DnaPrint would be able to handle the "whole package".
With our acquisition of Trace & Ellipse, we are possitioned to accomodate the greater demand of Government's processing needs in Identification. I don't see where we would be of value in increasing Codis, but what do I know? LOL
Things are begining to look up, that's for sure, and for that I am extreemly grateful, as it has been very difficult for me to be possitive since the r/s has devistated DnaPrint's share price. Three years ago I didn't consider it possible that the s/p would fall lower than .025 and felt I had possitioned myself well w/ a .054 average since originally investing at .235 in Oct. of 2000. I have never been a defeatist, but have to admit that my outlook has been damaged these past couple of years. The past is just that.....the past. I look forward to a much awaited arrival of attention given to DnaPrints ADMIXMAP and what it can accomplish in the new era of personalized medicine and law enforcement.
Let's hope a time of rejoicing will be warranted this year.
Theo, from the get go, NITE has sat on the ASK. I recall "Tis" mentioning this particular MM as being unscrupulous and a sign that things weren't on the up and up. I truly don't understand the mechanisms at work, but deep down in my gut I "feel" there has been some entity manipulating the share price of DnaPrint to our detriment. Of course I take this personally because I am on the losing end of the stick, so to speak, and am hard pressed to be objective about the subject. For many years I watched a pattern being used against this company, having the opportunity to stay on the computer during trading hours, so can honestly say that I observed a downward trend that didn't have anything to due w/ volume of sells. What is one to do? I really don't know, but I have a bad taste in my mouth and a bitterness against the bashers that participate here. jmho!!
ebo07,nickotime; it has always been my possition that DnaPrint WILL succeed, having been 1st on the block w/ a predictive Genomics Test that defines percentage of Ancestry. This threshold determinant "could" be, perhaps is, the cornerstone of our approach to drug response. It is this seperation of metabolic response that defines the difference in approaches being heralded today. It is all good to say that a particular gene sequence, or lack of these, that regulates reaction to a drug, but then to identify those that inherently have these formations is the crux. Perhaps my concept here is much too simplistic to be considered valid, but as I see it, it is the rendereing down of the vast population structure that I see the value here. All this to say that essentially I can't substantiate my belief thru essoteric principles, but I've hung my hat on what I understand, like most others.
When I first invested in DnaPrint I did think that we had the fast track to acceptance and a "moon ride". These past few years have dissapointing, to say the least, and I place the onus on those that are opposed to redifining the accepted process in the drug industry. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that there has been a concerted effort to derail, forstall, or bankrupt DnaPrint Genomics by those in the business community. You may notice that I have never indicated that the Scientific Community has rejected what our founder, Dr. Tony Frudakis, has prognosticated concerning his developing work. On the other hand, there has been a palethera of bashers willing to indicate that DnaPrint is inconsequential in it's possition and after 6 years I can only say that there has been one poster who even comes close to defining why they think DnaPrint is a "dead duck", so to speak, and that is frog; all the rest rely on the s/p for validation of their opinion, which I have stated previously has been manipulated to the max.
As Chrisbaskett would say, "but, hey...." My opinion and the only one that counts for me.
chiggah, thanks for your sustaining viewpoint on the progress that DnaPrint has made against the seeming insurmountable odds that oppose it's presence. Success seems to now be within a reasonable timeframe as indicated by the timeline we now have.
I recognize that there is a division to be crossed between scientific acceptance and marketing. The latter is the area that DnaPrint seems to be the weakest in, but there seems to be a growing developement w/ the inclusion of Dr. Handeling coming onboard and taking the vocal forefront.
For the many Longs here that have early investment dollars reduced to sub-penny value, it is difficult to maintain optomism as the endless downward spiral gives more credence to those that ridicule.
Initially, I had hopes that DnaPrint could pull off that "rabbit in the hat" trick and trancend the normal growth pattern that start-up companies normally have to go thru. Oh, well, life doesn't always hand out the winning ticket to the most deserving. LOL
Much to the naysayers mantra, DnaPrint Genomics continue to forge ahead w/ their developements as Cosmic and Arch have recently posted. There is alot to say for this companies prospects in the future.
I may have my own fundamental difficulty w/ Management and how they have spent my investment dollar, but the fact remains that the doors are still open and forward progress is being made.
I cannot turn back the clock and recoup what I have already spent, but you can be sure that if I could I would still invest in this companies future. Call me an old fool, but there is something being accomplished that will bring DnaPrint out w/ flying colors, imho. I only wish I had another $25K to back up the my initial investment. Some here would indicate that it would just be more money after bad; twice burnt, etc, and there really isn't anything I can say to dispell their rant, except that I am still here and still believe. Go figure.
My thoughts, as posted elsewhere.
Although I frequent all of the Bulletin Boards for gleaning of meaning, I seldom post anywhere but IHub as my personal discouragement doesn't leave me much to contribute in a possitive way. I do, however, appreciate the facts AND speculations that are brought forth by those who have better equipted themselves to remain enlightened about the potential of DnaPrint Genomics. After saying such, it is my hope that I can once again rejoin in the rejoicing of those that see, in a possitive light, the fulfillment of what was started back in '00. My enthusiasm has been so diminished by the drastic dilutive effects of the recent r/s and considerable corporate share selling by management I feel left abandoned. I fervently hope that this New Year will bring prosperity in terms of possitive progress as reflected in revenue for this fledgeling company and that it's founder & management can find a way to increase shareholder's value as they have been promising. Until then, all I can say is, Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy.