Is back from vacation AND is NOT impressed
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.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I'm not sure why you can't understand that the transaction as a whole, HAS NOT COMPLETED YET?
Do you think that everytime a reporting company puts a deposit down on a deal (THAT IS NOT YET COMPLETED much less entered LOI STAGE...OR MOA.....)needs to file an 8k?
Drop all the other rhetoric for one second...and let's see an answer on that.
It is a simple question.
What the two of you are missing is that regardless of how this deal was structured...security regs do not change to suit deals.
This deal from what we see in the latest filings is not yet completed....the deal could fall flat...get cancelled...hell the terms of the deal could change....ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE UNTIL IT CLOSES!
So what pray tell is it about this yet to be completed deal, that has only a deposit on file, that drives you to think an 8k is required?
Do you think the officers of the company did not seek legal counsel as to filings required?
You are talking about a once a filer always a filer scenario...the fact they are currently pink does not relinquish their requirement to file.
SO INSTEAD OF POKING ME IN THE EYE because you believe I do not understand your opinion.....given the fact an 8k has not accompanied this newest revelation......in your own words explain precisely in detailed terms why the officers of the company are negligent (let's face it...if you are correct then that is what you are saying right)
Leave me and my opinion out of it and try and explain precisely why, in point form they are negligent.
Then we can discuss what it is SHOULD or should NOT be done about it.
Frankly I think, the two of you are trying to make the rules/regs suit your debate...without having any information of substance to promulgate your side of the debate....but thats just my opinion....so far your opine is all I have seen.......try posting something factual.
As to what rights this license is to include and for what regions geographically speaking....where is your confusion there?
You do understand that technology licenses carry territorial rights that up to and including date of deals closing for specific regions....MIGHT CHANGE?
The ramifications of such changes can unilaterally have huge ramifications to the deal itself?
So where again is the need for the 8k to state what at this time?
I await your thorough well thought out response.
Incorrect!....A DEPOSIT WAS BOOKED! NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS!!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "PARTIAL TRANSACTION"
Can a woman be partially pregnant?????
nice try
the issue was taken with the verbiage as follows:
"do you have the Information that EEGC should have filed in the form of an 8K on the Mystery Technology bought from Malcolm for $21 Million??"
not the transaction itself.
the information bolded above purports the transaction to have been completed...hence the word "bought"
the deposits booked, debt to be booked in the future and the rest of it have nothing per se to do with the highlighting of the falsified assumption of the transaction being deemed completed at this time.
I would suggest you start reading the filings and associated regulations...as CLEARLY .....grocking the basic "relative terminology" is just not happening.
Excuse me, I have a question.
I am a shareholder in the natural sense, one who has bought and paid for my holdings, and what you have insinuated here is very disturbing indeed.
So disturbing that I believe the SEC should be involved...but I am not sure, I could be wrong...so why don't we settle this down to brass tacks.
This is obviously surrounding the following statement, I think you will recognize the author:
and I can only explain this misconception and where it originated from ONCE!!!
SEE MY LAST POST...THEN CHECK YOUR VERY OWN QUOTE
THE MODELLING YOU SAY HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS HAVING BEGUN!!!!!!
and that was over a year ago!
The insinuation that the company IS NOT CURRENTLY PREPARED for mass rollout of the processors,... is NOT based on current, accurate or complete information.
The information you are quoting is not from the latest filing, it is from the second latest filing. Trivial point maybe, but oh yes....there is more...much more relevancy to this !! read on!!!
THAT FILING IS MERELY AN AMENDED 14 MONTH OLD FILING!!
(which in and of itself means your assumption has zero basis for being factual!!!! In addition to that tasty fact...for all you know, much has changed in that 14 months!)
It is simply FALSE to make ASSUMPTIONS of "current status" of anything based on 14 month old information!!!
Now here's yet another kicker you have neglected to note a key phrase in that 14 month old information.
WHICH STATES....AND I QUOTE YOU HERE
"each assembly process is being photographed and logged so that the processes and procedures for the final operating unit can modeled, independently tested, and the put into production quickly "
yup there it is MODELED..well what usually is involved with modeling? uh?????
YUP DETAILED DRAWINGS, ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS BLA BLA BLA
yes indeedly doodly......the very stuff you say they have not done was already underway over 14 months ago.
Once a company starts something of this nature they have up to and including their first unit sold to complete such modeling.
Until such time they can tweak and amend the package in the model until it is as bulletproof as it needs to be.
Heck even after the first unit is sold many companies continue to use support and feedback from their clients to further improve the build out package., and support networks, so that customer service down the road and for years to come is as up to date as possible.
To make the assumptions as have been delivered to this board in my opinion was not only pre-mature, but based on incomplete, outdated information, that was poorly grocked and negligently represented!
I am QUITE sure that any reasonable man, behind a gavel or not..WOULD AGREE!
meeeehhhhh I dunno boss but the only "other" diggin I was able to cough up was the following....and just what it means I have no freakin clue but here it goes.
http://www.equityresolution.net/
finds
Contact Information
Email :
equityresolution@yahoo.com
Phone :
626-485-8765
Address :
P.O. Box 5001
Covina
Ca
91723
U.S.A
Powered by Yahoo! Web Hosting. Copyright Yahoo, Inc.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
googling
P.O. Box 5001
Covina
returns
http://www.evmodules.com/company.html
BARR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
doing business asEVModules
PO Box 5001
Covina, CA 91723
SAME ADDRESS!
sos california has the following for
BARR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Entity Number: C3082657
Date Filed: 04/18/2008
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 132 S STARGLEN AVE
Entity City, State, Zip: COVINA CA 91724
Agent for Service of Process: SEAN BARR
Agent Address: 132 S STARGLEN AVE
Agent City, State, Zip: COVINA CA 91724
Don't mean much...and the trail seems to end there
yeah well that's if and it's a "if" SW registration is required.
vector is a term applied to "critters" that spread disease, etc
Soooo...what's the hold up? .....TODAY!
I SAY "TODAY" BECAUSE... well for lack of better amusements it seems certain "SPECIAL" folks keep coming up with "new and depraved" reasons for their accusatorial lamentations as to how the "company" or worse the "CEO" has deliberately or negligently screwed this all up in yet another "ode to puppy factory" FASHION.
Yet we hear, just today, rumors that some brownshoe, just this past wednesday, "decided" on something of a SW registration or permit WILL be required. Which really does not surprise me as a while ago, when this was first raised, I too, read some DEC website jargon talking about pyrolysis machines and the like, rather than get all wound up in it, I chose to allow the powers that be sort it out.
Have not been around much for a spell and much to my surprise this is STILL "TOPIC DU JOUR" so here's my take on the lighter side of it all.
To BUD or not to BUD, is that really the question?
Arguements for or against don't mean much considering the BUD application is reportedly already filed, and until DEC determines this BUD's for JBII and reviews and approves that BUD application, arguing the point is...well.....FRIGGEN STUPID!!
Now for something completely different.
Solid Waste Management Facility Registrations & Permits
On the rumor of the SW permit being required.
2-4 months to complete after application received?
Really?...and how long to get up to code before the application can be filed just to begin that 2-4 months waiting?
If Lovethatgreen and purportedly others were told the same thing, it might very well be correct as that waiting period is much longer than simple SW facility registration.
But in the fear that "This BUD's NOT for JBII, and something to do with SW will be required one MIGHT hope the prep to file SW "registration" is already underway as it needs to be
"submitted to the office of the department administering the region in which the facility is to be located, on a form prescribed by or acceptable to the department, at least 30 days prior to undertaking the activity proposed for registration."
who knows.....certainly not me lol...but if registration becomes the way to "get er done" here is the basic game plan. Some of the more important shyte is bolded as is stuff needing doing before the registration application being filed.
"solid waste pyrolysis unit that accepts off-site generated solid waste as alternate fuels is subject to the registration provisions of section 360-1.8(h) of this Part, rather than the permit provisions of this Part,
(h) Registration of facilities.
(1) Certain regulated solid waste management facilities may be eligible for registration rather than the permit requirements of this Part, under prescribed thresholds and conditions specified in this subdivision and under each appropriate Subpart of this Part.
(2) Registrations are ministerial actions for purposes of Part 617 (State Environmental Quality Review) of this Title.
(3) Registrations are not subject to Part 621 (Uniform Procedures) of this Title.
(4) Registration forms must be submitted to the office of the department administering the region in which the facility is to be located, on a form prescribed by or acceptable to the department, at least 30 days prior to undertaking the activity proposed for registration.
(5) The owner or operator may not undertake a registered activity until they have received a validated copy from the department of their registration. If a facility proposed for registration requires other department permits, or otherwise does not meet the conditions and requirements specified in this Part, the department may disapprove a registration and require a permit application rather than a registration.
(6) Registrations for appropriate facilities are generally valid for the life of the registered facility and may be transferred only upon prior written approval by the department.
(7) Registered facilities may not be exempt from other applicable requirements of this Part.
(8) Registered facilities must submit an annual report, on forms prescribed by or acceptable to the department, to the department's central office and the office of the department administering the region in which the facility is located, no later than 60 days after the first day of January following each year of operation. The report must include, but not be limited to: the total annual amount of waste received by weight or volume, compiled by type and quantity received during each calendar quarter; the origin of the waste received; the destination of the waste removed; the weight or volume and type of each material recovered; and, a description of any problems encountered and methods for resolution and any changes in operation that have occurred in the previous year.
(9) Registered facilities remain subject to the operational requirements of subdivisions 360-1.14(b), (d), (e), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (p), (r), (s) and (w) of this Part.
§360-1.14 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.
(b) Water.
(1) Solid waste must not be deposited in, and must be prevented from, entering surface waters or groundwaters.
(2) Leachate. All solid waste management facilities must be constructed, operated and closed in a manner that minimizes the generation of leachate that must be disposed of and prevent the migration of leachate into surface and groundwaters. Leachate must not be allowed to drain or discharge into surface water except pursuant to a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and must not cause or contribute to contravention of groundwater quality standards established by the department pursuant to ECL section 17-0301.
(d) Control of access.
Access to and use of the facility must be strictly and continuously controlled by fencing, gates, signs, natural barriers or other suitable means.
(e) Control program for unauthorized waste.
(1) The facility owner or operator must institute a control program (including measures such as signs at all maintained access points indicating hours of operation and the types of solid waste accepted and not accepted,
(I would add that persitent folks wanting to know the exact type of feedstock would be finally shut up with this last part)
monitoring, alternate collection programs, passage of local laws, etc.) to assure that only solid waste authorized by the department to be treated, disposed of or transferred at the facility is being treated, disposed of or transferred at that facility. The facility owner or operator must develop and implement a program to teach the facility's staff to recognize, remove and report receipt of solid waste not authorized by the department to be treated, disposed of or transferred at the facility.
(2) If solid waste not authorized by the department to be treated, disposed of or transferred at the facility is observed in the solid waste at the facility or delivered to the facility, the facility owner or operator may refuse to accept the waste. If the owner or operator accepts the waste, the owner or operator must remove it, segregate it, and provide to the department a record identifying that waste and its final disposition. The department must be notified of each incident in the annual report and records of each incident must be available for department review. Any unauthorized waste accepted by the facility owner or operator must be managed in accordance with applicable federal or State laws and regulations.
(3) Solid waste not authorized by the department to be treated, disposed of or transferred at the facility that is segregated must be adequately secured and contained to prevent leakage or contamination of the environment. The facility owner or operator must cause it to be removed as soon as practicable, but not to exceed 90 days after discovery, by a person authorized to transport such waste to a facility approved to receive it for treatment, disposal or transfer.
(i) Recordkeeping.
(1) The facility owner or operator must retain records of all unauthorized solid waste accepted identifying the waste and its final disposition. Such records must be summarized in the annual report. They must include the date solid waste was received, the type of solid waste received, the date of disposal, the disposal method and location.
(2) The facility owner or operator must record self inspections as required by paragraph 360-1.14(f)(3) of this Subpart in an inspection log. These records must be retained for at least seven years from the date of inspection. They must include the date and time of the inspection, the name of the inspector, a description of the inspection including the identity of specific equipment and structures inspected, the observations recorded, and the date and nature of any remedial actions implemented or repairs made as a result of the inspection.
(3) Except as otherwise specified in this Part pertaining to a specific type of solid waste management facility, the facility owner or operator must keep records of all data used to develop or support the permit applications and any supplemental information submitted to comply with the requirements of this Part and pertaining to construction of the facility throughout the active life of the facility and the post-closure period. Records pertaining to the operation of the solid waste facility must be kept for a period of no less than seven years from the date they are made or are required to be made, whichever is later.
(4) The facility owner or operator must retain records of all monitoring information (including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation; and copies of all reports required by, or by a permit issued under, this Part) for a period of at least seven years from the date of the sample analysis, measurement, report or application. Existing water quality records must be kept throughout the active life of the facility and the post-closure period. Records for monitoring information must include: the date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements; the name of the individual who performed the sampling and measurement; the date analyses were performed; the name of the individual who performed the analyses; the analytical techniques or methods used; and the result of such analyses. Additional information relating to the analysis, including records of internal laboratory quality assurance and control, must be made available to the department at its request.
(j) Confinement of solid waste.
Blowing litter must be confined to solid waste holding and operating areas by fencing or other suitable means. Solid waste must be confined to an area that can be effectively maintained, operated and controlled. Solid waste must not be accepted at a solid waste management facility unless the waste is adequately covered or confined in the vehicle transporting the waste to prevent dust, and blowing litter.
(k) Dust control.
Dust must be effectively controlled so that it does not constitute a nuisance or hazard to health, safety, or property. The facility owner or operator must undertake any and all measures as required by the department to maintain and control dust at and emanating from the facility.
(l) Vector control.
The facility must be maintained so as to prevent or control on-site populations of vectors using techniques appropriate for protection of human health and the environment and prevent the facility from being a vector breeding area.
(m) Odor control.
Odors must be effectively controlled so that they do not constitute nuisances or hazards to health, safety or property.
(p) Noise levels.
Noise levels resulting from equipment or operations at the facility must be controlled to prevent transmission of sound levels beyond the property line at locations zoned or otherwise authorized for residential purposes to exceed the following Leq energy equivalent sound levels:
Character of Community Leq Energy Equivalent Sound Levels
7 a.m.-10 p.m. 10 p.m.-7 a.m.
Rural 57 decibels (A) 47 decibels (A)
Suburban 62 decibels (A) 52 decibels (A)
Urban 67 decibels (A) 57 decibels (A)
The Leq is the equivalent steady-state sound level which contains the same acoustic energy as the time varying sound level during a one-hour period. It is not necessary that the measurements be taken over a full one-hour time interval, but sufficient measurements must be available to allow a valid extrapolation to a one-hour time interval.
(1) If the background residual sound level (excluding any contributions from the solid waste management facility) exceeds these limits, the facility must not produce an Leq exceeding that background.
(2) The sound level must be the weighted sound pressure level measured with the slow metering characteristic and A-weighted.
(3) Measuring instruments must be Type 1 general purpose sound level meters, Type 2, or corresponding special sound level meters Type S1A or S2A.
(4) Mufflers are required on all internal combustion-powered equipment used at the facility. Sound levels for such equipment must not exceed 80 decibels (A) at a distance of 50 feet from the operating equipment.
(r) Department-approved facilities.
Solid waste resulting from industrial or commercial operations, sludge, and septage must be processed, disposed, used or otherwise managed only at facilities that the department has specifically approved for such management of that specific waste.
(s) Emergency numbers.
Telephone numbers to emergency response agencies such as the local police department, fire department, ambulance and hospital must be conspicuously posted in all areas where telephones are available for use at the facility.
(w) Closure.
The owner or operator of any active or inactive solid waste management facility must, upon termination of use, properly close that facility and must monitor and maintain such closure so as to minimize the need for further maintenance or corrective actions and to prevent or remedy adverse environmental or health impacts such as, but not limited to, contravention of surface water and groundwater quality standards, gas migration, odors and vectors. Termination of use includes those situations where a facility has not received solid waste for more than one year, unless otherwise provided by permit, or if the permit has expired. Termination of use also results from permit denial or order of the commissioner or of a court. Specific closure measures which may also include corrective actions as specified in this Part are subject to approval by the department.
0.0035 on that day
.0104 today...less than two weeks later
hell..... it's now what?
A FREAKING TEN BAGGER.......in as much as 5 weeks??????
there's my opinion, forget the book
liquid enough for the girls i go out with.
and I could give A RIP about all that other mumbo jumbo!!!!
gnite!
yeah it sure has, for the most part the chart has been rather predictable, imagine that down here in microland....
the dollar volume has been kinda nice for a change as well.....but as for calling a top??
I think it's getting close ...i think...lol...at this second there is not too much in the chart screaming sell...yet somehow that's what I expect to be hearing any time soon. Mind you the lazy arsed cmf is kind of looking weak, and never has really perked up so, but hey
stochs and such need to cool off
other than that it's a micro, and down here...well you know the drill
charts down here are about as reliable as women's diets in a chocolate shop.
just the same though...always pretty to look at!
I need to get horizontal...I'm out.
peace
The last one? Thank gawd!!!!!!
Contrary to opines best saved for the garbeurator, I was sent to bump it up...at the very least brang the vibe into the more recent era of the 20th century.
Sorry to break it down to ya but elvis is dead, and while disco is also dead... anyone still wearing "hammer pants" will attest to the fact that tecknotronic IS still alive and is barely still played enough to inspire this parody of the eighties favorite "pump up the jam".
Dig up the midi file if ya's fanatical enough about it. Theres more where this came from, despite the "save the worst for first" rule being adhered to.
Pump up the scam
Pump it up
While your brokers dealin
And the shares is printin'
Look a here the sheep are squealing
Pump it up a little more
Get the certs a flowin on the trading floor
See cuz that's where the dumpin’s at
And you'll find out if you pump like dat
I don't want a wait a day
Get your paper out the door this mornin
Make my pay
I don't want a wait a day
Get that paper on the floor.. quit moaning
Make my pay
Make my day
Make my play
Make my pay
Make my play
Yo!
Pump up the scam
Pump it up
While the SEC is squinting
And the scam is dumpin'
Look at all the certs a printing
Pump it up a little more
Get the rumors flowin on the chat floor
See cuz that's how we dump..like that
And you'll find out if you pump like dat
I don't want a wait a day
Get this paper out the door this mornin
Make my pay
I don't want a make ‘em wait
Get that paper on the floor.. last warning Make my pay
Make my pay
Make my, make my, make, Make my play
Make my day
Make my pay
Make my, make my, make, Make my play
Yo!
Pump up the scam, pump it up
A pump it up, and dump it
Pump up the sham, bump it up
A pump it up, yo dump it
Pump up the scam, pump it up
A pump it up, an’ dump it
Pump up the scam
Pump it, dump it, pump it, dump it,
Yo!
Pump up the sham
A pump up the scam
Pump up the scam
Pump it up, a dump it, pump it, dump it
Pump up the scam
Pump up the sham
Pump up the scam
Pump it, dump it, pump it, dump it, pump
Pump up the scam
Pump it up
While your sheep are bleating
And the scam is dumpin'
Look at the longs takin’ a beating
Pump it up a little more
Get the certs blowin’ right out the door
See cuz that's how we dump..like that
And you'll find out if you pump like dat
I don't want admin to say
Your going to jail last warning
Make me pay
I don't want….. bashers to say
Your contravening rule seventeen….b
Make me pay
I don't wanna pay shakey
Get them undisclosed pumpers postin
Make my pay
I don't want another down red day
Get them IRP’S A PUMPIN Make my pay
Make my pay
Who's the brilliant one responsible for the MORON helvis?
Jackass could not write a parody to save his stand up comic LIFE!
I heard there was a board started where we could vote for his public execution....link?
trust me, I won't be in that holla to a dolla crowd.
lmao.......nope
just find it amusing when you see the long term outlook requests AND "Long term trends kill penny investors." in the same bloody message
speaking of not proving any jbii trading anomalies
I am still waiting for the emminent PROOF of the so called "restricted shares hitting the brokers desk causing the ftd" theory???????
Do believe I have asked for that in public and private many many times and yet.....nothing.
So while we are on the "prove the trading anomaly" kick....how about it????
please....no theories....I am asking for proof here.
ALMOST 3-500% in barely 5 weeks would be classified as a short term result
why on earth would anyone be interested in long term results?
uh?
"Long term trends kill penny investors."
so who gives a rip about that "long term" interest????????????????
ssssssssssmokin
Solid product, solid company, nuff said.
and then maybe not
by the time you read all of those it will surely be a case of..
"get out the way son......your standing in the way of the momo"
LFBG just bounced BIGLY off the trips zone...just like many thought it would
funny how many know, for dam sho, it's a micro...behaves like one...was priced like one....and yet the message is stay away!!!!!!
many are making dough "hand over fist" despite that RHETORIC
then theres the age old theory that if you spend too much time looking backwards....you'll walk into a ditch.
xmas season 2010 cometh, and nothing from the past is a guarantee of the future......maybe a notion...but thas it.
even a half assed response from this nationwide campaign, might just kickstart this company....
maybe not...who knows....but faulting those who position play this one for trying to ride some freebies or cheapies in that events hope, might not play out either.
yep dilution sux.....yep the past sux
yep maybe even some of the games suck if you are not into that sort of thing
but trips to dubs rocks!!!!!
nationwide walmart rocks!!!!!!
and if a little grease cometh
LFBG MIGHT EVEN ROCK!!!!!!!
what an admirer of svelte big board clydesdales is doing at the lfbg greyhound track frothing at the mouth is yet another story uh?
also for some time now, in the search box, where it says type in a ticker or keyword....when you do....auto popup comes on allowing you to mouseover to choose from public message, members etc, and autofill works nicely adding the ticker BUT
many many times and still til this day, when you mouse over your selection and click it...only the ticker remains, instead of the selected search type, consequently..... instead of the search type registering and thusly eventually displaying the intended search results....the ticker just sits there and no search is performed...this forces one to re-enter the ticker, sometimes several times before the search type activates , displays, and actually happens.
the new groovy search box is indeed groovy.....when it works, seems like this particular malfunction....persists regularily.
used to be...on the quote page, it would say otcbb, other otc,. naz etc etc
now nothing?
is everything just trading on ihub now lol
wut hapind?
yup...sure has....ya think it's time for this fella to avg down? lol
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=56040408
based on a hypothetical situation...maybe
have you confirmed with the media company that they will not be allowing advertising for the company on this basis?
shirley you have not
Once again the topic du jour is as gay as a pink pancake.
Thank you for that
ok.....imagine this
jbi to media credit guy:>>>>>ya....john here, we would like to run some more ads
media credit guy:>>>>> uh sorry john...since you removed them as an asset, we can't help you...as a result of your restatement in your financials we now show your credit value as zero...so ....SORRY... no ads for you!!!!
john:>>>>> who the hell authorized this????
media credit guy:>>>>> uhhhhhh lemme check....some guy called in saying he was your cfo...think he said his name was joby????
Seems to me that anyone able to access their grey matter would agree that the credits are still there, and as far as using them is concerned, they still have their original value ...minus whatever has been spent on ads thus far.
NOT TOO UNREASONABLE NO??????
enough guessing
bring the proof
funny how corroborating FACTS, can silence GUESSWORK
ahem
"Spaulding’s drilled the top hole section at Bellevue"
who said that?
and this?
"It is also possible that MRT will not allow this rig to be used as it does not have BOP (Blow out preventers) which are compulsory equipment for oil and gas exploration wells."
im not the sharpest tack in the voodoo doll but if mrt wont allow it...then how in the hell did they get the spaulding rig on site the first time?????
btw both BOLDED above quotes in contradiction with themselves....are from YOU.
googled this up
http://www.vrenergie.com/
Looks like they need to chew through some more objections, not that they have had any difficulty in doing so thus far but.....few more to go.
"you'll have to visit one and count"?????????????
lmaoooooooooooooooooo
good un
Judging by the vague, non-descript responses I would not believe it for a second.
If a person is SO close to the family, simple details like this would be easy to come by.
I notice some of the questions were avoided.
This information appears to be second if not third hand, as such likely no more than a rumour.
Mind you, I am open to facts, if there are any....sadly none have been presented here.
What the ex-spouse did or did not do has little to nothing to do with the other.
I find it oh so interesting how, on one hand facts about other aspects of the ceo's doings and future plans within the company are DEMANDED....yet simple historical RUMORS are expected to be believed with zero factual data to back them up.
BY the way...when it comes to "family", rumors first, lies second, and truth only ever comes around at the christmas dinner table...and even that is speculative at best.
Bring some facts otherwise I call hogwash.
"ripping off cable companies with modifing cable boxes to recieve premium channel's for free and selling them?"
I have a few questions regarding this matter, and considering your allegations, I would expect you will have the answers.
What year(s) did this take place?
What were the charges levied?
Where were they levied?
Which cable company?
Where was the case tried?
Was the case publicized in the media?
Where can copies of the media publications be found?
How did you become aware of this?
Oil exploration in Tasmania, has many similarities to the New Zealand efforts.
GMP puts $225 target on New Zealand Oil Play
Those familiar with the eegc story as it has developed in tazmania will find this story and it's similarities,.... very interesting.
from oil seeps, to low oil finds at first, to lengthy exploration and dry holes, non domestic operators,
hell..."The impression that only gas could be found in New Zealand persisted for several decades."
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/oil-and-gas/4
Then
"Discovery of KapuniIn 1954, the Todd Brothers company obtained government leases to explore large areas of the North Island, and it involved two overseas oil companies, Shell and BP, in the work. The first large-scale seismic surveys were carried out in Taranaki farmland, revealing a promising underground structure near Kapuni.
One Sunday morning in 1959, a drill rig at Kapuni struck gas at a depth of 4,000 metres. The pressure was such that it forced the drilling mud back up the shaft, plastering the rig and workers with muck. Kapuni was only a moderate-sized gas field by world standards, but it was large enough to meet the country’s requirements for gas.
Kapuni gas replaced the gas produced from coal, which led to the demise of gasworks throughout the country. A gas treatment plant was built to reduce the water and carbon dioxide content of the gas before it was reticulated to users. High-pressure pipelines were laid to take the gas to Wellington and Auckland."
Now anybody hear a familiar tone?
I sure do...skeptics skeptics skeptics...theres no oil!!!!!
Years and years and multi millions of dollars were likely expended before....click click boom!
You are comparing corrected RE-STATED asset VALUE FROM 10 MILL TO ZILCH
with an INCORRECT ASSET VALUE OF 1.4 BILLION? that remained uncorrected ???????
lol
hahahaha
do I have that correctly?
actually thats not quite correct, or I guess I should say somewhat assumptive.
The post i referenced was from Tuesday, September 29, 2009 2:32:38 PM, wherein the poster said,
"I spoke recently with JB"
AND
"2. The part of the processor held up in customs was caused by the inclusion of gloves with asbestos content along with the processor part. This caused Canadian customs to go over the entire shipment with the proverbial fine tooth comb."
heres the link
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=41998912
undt zo
re: epa...When given the choice of believing some internet promulgated misguided interpretations of those regulations, or the opinion of an actual real live EPA fuel regulatory person, I would hands down, beyond a shadow of a doubt, take the word of the EPA as gospel and blow off the misguided interpretations from internet keyboards.
Now unless you have had correspondence with the epa, wherein they have rendered a contrary opinion....i would expect most would agree that the chance of a layperson misinterpreting the reg's is 100% possible and more so likely.
I EXPECT NO SUCH CONTACT WITH THE EPA WILL BE POSTED, prove me wrong.
on that note...did not the company comment that sales into the states were not on the agenda immediately, and that initial anticipated sales into canada were the goal?