Gary, you are correct, it is libel, not slander.
Reminds me of the story about the former President of the United States from Texas who, in a race early in his political career, instructed an aide to spread the rumor that his opponent was inclined to enjoy the company of his livestock. "But Sir," the horrified aide said, "surely you don't expect him to admit that."
To which the future President replied, "I want him to DENY it."

LOL, was just having a little fun with the old elevator operator.

Regards.

Just tell me you are not responsible for rigging the Academy Awards. Or making Steve Guttenburg a star.

Thanks for the info. Seriously, I've seen your analyses, which are impressive. A web search turned up nada. Is there a secret handshake?

Gary, forgive my ignorance, what is the ADAPT you refer to?

Thanks.

Where is Bill Brasky in all of this?
Sheesh, let's just have a scotch and soldier (one of the female lady women Israeli type) whilst we wait for our flights. We're talking about a penny stock here, no?

Vegas, I'll add my voice to those who hope you stay around.
And David, I agree that this has a curious recent bottom at .09, which IMHO is due to people being frozen into their positions. If you look at the fast and slow stochastics, it's of little help, because they are opposite.

However, there has been no news posted recently about the float. Again, IMHO, that is the only way he can keep this going. And a poster on the other board copied a (responsibly written) email he sent to Madeleine Franco, who was supposedly with a PR firm called Jordan Rich, or something like that, and the answer came back from "MadFranco@aol.com"

Now I ask you, what kind of PR firm has an email addy of "MadFranco@aol.com"?

Enjoy the 4th everybody, we still have the advantage of living in the the greatest experiment in democracy the world has ever known!

Regards.

Bird, I agree with your assessment of the two sides of the coin.
"One side of the coin says Tom is running a scam for the benefit of Tom and that he will never, ever make it anytrhing more than what it is.
Another side says that this is Tom's Dream: to have his product in every grocer in the country and that he will do whatever it takes to get there."

I think that actually both are true. In order to do # 1, he will do # 2, with the amendment that:
Tom's Dream: to have his product in every grocer in the country [for two weeks] and that he will do whatever it
takes to get there.

Regards

Yes, my experience was that the product had a slightly bitter aftertaste. However, as oldblue has said, palates are different. For example, diet soda has a bitter taste to me, but I know a lot of people who prefer diet soda to regular soda, and they are not dieting. I had also mentioned before that this wouldn't be a reason to not invest. The reason I put (actual) in there was to distinguish the bitter aftertaste of the product from the bitter aftertaste of the investment experience, LOL.

Regards.

Sorry, it was Gary's article on MMM.

Sorry for the mixup, Gary and Dave.

I have enjoyed and gained a great deal of knowledge about the OTC BB market from the posters on this board and the RD board. I worked on the customer service side (not the investment side) of a large mutual fund co. for many years, and have been looking at Internet bulletin boards for 10 years and am amazed by:
1. My own ignorance of the OTC BB machinations.
2. There are others who are way more ignorant.

Dave, your article on the warning signs of MMM was amazing.

I bought AVBC at $1.00 on a cocktail-napkin-type tip, like a lottery ticket, and wasn't even paying any attention when it pumped to $2.00 a few months later. Rest assured, I'd have take a double in a couple of months, but the next time I looked it was .70 and sinking, so I sent good money after bad (not a lot, my total loss is about $285). But I'm curious, because, next to OTC BB "investors", consumers have to be the next biggest suckers.

My question is this:
I have read all of the posts on RB and IHUB since about January of this year. IMHO, the current pursuit of the "syndicate" probably isn't going anywhere. I would guess if one thing Tom Gillespie has learned, it's how to stay legal. But if that's the case, and he essentially controls all the votes, then can't he keep this up (almost) indefinitely? So what if he alienates Albertson's and other big chains - isn't it a big world? And can't he always move on to "market" in another territory? And pump and dump to raise money to do it, all the while stating his good intentions, and then "they don't work out" (darn it).

All the while with a product which is now, from what I hear, 11 years old, has no natural ingredients, no patentable processes, has a (actual) bitter aftertaste, no production, no revenues and no profits.

Thanks.