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.
By: boyce_recognition:
"Why in the world would people invest in One Voice if they are losing confidence in blue chip stocks?......... The last thing any sane person would do in a market correction is pull even a small amount of money out of a Berkshire Hathaway or a major utility and put it into One Voice
Well the other side of that coin, maybe is that unlike you, some of us have discretionary funds available and allocated for speculative investing. ONEV fits that bill for some investors who see their innonvative leading edge VR products (which they own) as an appropriate stock to buy.
Probably from your fiscal perspective it may be difficult to comprehend, however, some of us may be affluent enough that we do not have to sell our "blue chips" in order to buy ONEV.
In your case if you have to sell a major utility in order to purchase some ONEV stock, then ONEV is not for you, do not buy any more. I can understand the temptation, especially if you have seen the MCC in action, and recognized that the future in home entertainment is the merging and fusion of music, digital pics, video, telephone, voice and email into one device that is then controlled by the users voice from anywhere in the home.
Futhermore, if the recent market behavior has you in fear that the entire market is "tumbling", that would indicate that you are over extended anyway. You should probably keep whatever you have out of the market anyway and refrain .. ...It is not for everybody.
Remember that one should allocate funds in appropriate risk categories, and a well balanced portfolio is a must.
Berkshire Hathaway has way too much of their assets in cash anyway, you may as well just put it in a bank and have it insured as well. Selling BH and buying Google at the time of the IPO would have put one much further ahead by now. You got to think "outside the box".
Speculative investing is not for everyone, a good indication of that is if you behave irrationaly, become overly focused on one issue, spend way to much time on one stock. They are all indications that one may be in way over ones head.
So the bottom line is people will invest in ONEV regardless of the market conditions, and some believe that ONEV may attract investors who do not want to follow eveyone and put their speculative resources in "boring instruments like CDs"
I think hellfighters03 has a valid and interesting point, but again, for some that may be hard to rationalize as it refers to those that have available resources in that category.
I was looking for an example of such posts from the other board, but it seems that a lot them have disappeared.
By: boyce_recognition/Rodentia/Neal
"I BELIEVE IN ONE VOICE TECHNOLOGIES AND THEIR PRODUCT SOFTWARE VISION FOR THE EMERGING MARKET OF VOICE RECOGNITION TECHOLOGY.
I AM PART OF A GROUP OF INVESTORS THAT SUPPORT ONE VOICE TECHNOLOGIES BUSINESS EFFORTS, AND AM COMMITTED TO KEEPING THE DISCUSSION FREE FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP THAT HAVE A HISTORY OF POSTING ONLY REPETITIVE NEGATIVITY AND SLANDEROUS SKEWED MESSAGES.
That being said, here is a new post from another board I found interesting"
It only took you 14 minutes from the time you posted it on Raging Bull to re post it over here Neal. You couldn't wait a few more minutes to make it a liitle more beliveable ?? How stupid can one be...
"But it is a better explanation than any I read on this board. I thought that might be worthy of a post"
Is there such a thing as "self plagiarism" ??
Of course this tactic is nothing new for you. When you started the scam posting about the "current" SEC investigation of ONEV, you began that on Raging Bull also:
By: boston_ipcontroller
19 Oct 2006, 02:45 PM EDT
Msg. 137769
thart...thoughts on the ONEV SEC investigation .....The SEC is requesting financials to back up the clarifications. That can be the touch of death if there has been any impropriety.....You'd almost think someone around here had screwed with the wrong guys...LOL!
Which was followed by
By: boston_ipcontroller
19 Oct 2006, 03:04 PM EDT
Msg. 137773
imarock...not spreading "fear & doubt". SEC investigation
is 100% verified. ... I'd say an SB2 investigation by the SEC warrants some shareholder interest...no? Unless you see some way for the company to survive more than another week or two on product revenue alone.
You also immediately reposted that on IHUB as well:
Posted by: Bullwinkle959
Why no interest in SEC SB2 investigation?
I would think that any time the SEC is looking into an area upon which your entire infrastructure relies for liquidity, it would be of major concern to all shareholders..............
But if it were to lead to a temporary cease and desist on the issue of shares in the form of convertible debentures or otherwise for any length of time, it could be fiscally catastrophic for the company.
Your agenda is so obvious even a blind person can see it. No less than 50 posting aliases on Raging Bull, and now you are doing the same thing over here.
When your scams are disrupted you then degenerate to posting stalking posts about the Moderator that booted you, with as much personal info on their lifestyle and travel routines as you can find details about....AND you keep coming back.
One would think that as many times as you have been busted posting false and malicious statements about ONEV under multiple aliases, that you would just stay away from sheer embarrassment. ...But I guess that would require reasoning skills and intuition.
boyce_recognition said:
This may be a simple case of paranoia
Seeing that you posted it twice, on different forums, it could well be a "simple" case of paranoia !!, or even worse, a simple case of rodentia abstencia.
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=ONEV&read=139998
I see you left this part out of the repeat:
"Well, it has only been 3 1/2 years folks....these things take time....LOL!"
Again, read all the PR's and filings carefully.
One Voice does indeed own and have full rights to MCC. I hear MCC for Vista is far more reliable than Vista's built in voice rcognition.
By:"boyce_recognition"
.."Has he recently received a number of options or bought additional shares to try and get back his original holding percentage?"...
What did you find when you checked the filings ??
Make sure that you review them carefully, pay attention to details, especially dates, remember what happened the last time.
...Most of the investment education seminars they hold on the OTC and pink sheet companies generally say this, in combination with dilutionary financing practices is an ominous red flag.
Which specific OTC seminar did you attend that said that ??
Posted by 'Bullwinkle959'
"ONEV boards on IHUB & RB essentially shut down..."
You might try upgrading from the free NetZero dial up connection. Just because you cannot reach them does not mean they are shut down. You might want to grab a copy of "Internet for Dummies" and it will improve your understanding of how the internet works.
"FAKE members are currently keeping him running by posting under new aliases every now and then.".
Well since that is a crew of 1, how many aliases are you posting under ?? excluding the ones used for posting personal information about board moderators.?
Posted by: 'Bullwinkle959'
SEC requests clarification from ONEV...
It would seem that the SEC needs some disclosure clarification on SB2 filings from ONEV made in the first quarter 10Q? I noticed that round about the time this was filed, there was a huge push by people on all ONEV boards to have members TOS'd who keep up on this sort of thing and make sure shareholders are aware of it. Interesting. Sometimes calling a bluff doesn't prove too intelligent...
Speaking of "intelligent" and "bluff" there Mr. Controller. It "would seem" that if one were capable of reading SEC documents in chronological order, then one would realize that posting this on 10/19 several months after the SEC acknowledged that the issue was closed, would say more about the integrity of the poster, or lack thereof, than any issue the SEC may have originally raised.
Of course the additional statements that there was "100% Verified current ongoing SEC Investigation" that will have a "devastating" effect on the company, further confirms that there is an obvious motive behind the attempt to take a 6 months old resolved issue and falsely state that it is "current" and "ongoing". Isn't that why the FEDs were all over Elgindy ?.
Wrong assumption
"I am assuming you took my early post to heart as you truly needed to correct that situation. BTW...for once I am glad to see one of my posts deleted ."
It didn't work, ... it was like the arsonists calling in to report the fire ..... and getting busted!!
A tad Ironic i'd say !!
"You have left enough personal information on the IHUB boards alone for anyone to find out everything about you. I will not specify details as it may persuade some nut to cause you real problems. I tell you this because you need to 1) review all the posts you have ever put up on IHUB, 2) select those containing personal info and 3) have the IHUB board administrator delete them ALL....NOW."
Just in case someone may actually consider that as genunine, you should add for the record that on 11/30/2006 you posted for public discussion as much personal details of the moderator and their lifestyle as you could muster in a quasi stalking post here:
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=ONEV&read=138679
To follow up with this fake concern 3 months after posting inviting comments about their identity info, really sums up the gross deficiencies in your character. The disclaimer is hollow and only meant to offset the clear intent of the post.
Setting the true record straight !!!
Your proclaimed concern for the well being of ONEV shareholders is in this same category. The record of continously posting patently false information about the company and its products clearly demonstrates that the intent is otherwise.
Check again !!,
"Learn to differentiate between mindless speculation and positive ramblings concerning this company and people pointing out relevant facts about it that may not be popular with all parties. Last time I checked that was called democracy and freedom of speech."
Here is just one of the "relevant facts" that posted 6 months after the SB2 issue was satisified and closed.
Posted by: Bullwinkle959
Why no interest in SEC SB2 investigation?
I would think that any time the SEC is looking into an area upon which your entire infrastructure relies for liquidity, it would be of major concern to all shareholders. ....But if it were to lead to a temporary cease and desist on the issue of shares in the form of convertible debentures or otherwise for any length of time, it could be fiscally catastrophic for the company.
Some might consider that malice, libel, or even attempted stock manipulation and not democracy and freedom of speech.
That us just one of hundreds of "relevant facts" that you posted about ONEV.
Wonderful Neal,
Should we consider "Rocky...agreed." as turning a new leaf??
That is correct
The wash sale rule does not prohibit you from taking the loss as a deduction, only when, it just postpones it. You carry your loss forward and adjust the cost basis of your re purchase that was made within the window.
All incorrect again.
Since when is repeating statemnets that you have made a "personal attack". The accuracy and credibility of any post should be measured in the context of known previous statements by the same individual. If multiple previous postings about ONEV were patently false and misleading then that is a valid criteria to apply that context to any subsequent statements.
That fact that you constantly morph under new aliases does not entitle you to shed you prior record of abysmal accuracy. Neither is it an opportunity for you to claim a "personal attack" when that record of prior false statements is pointed out. Though you have a intense desire to "wipe the slate" of your past statements, they are nonetheless a valid context for evaluating anything else you have to say about the company.
As for the implied threat in your last sentence, be advised that I do not take threats from the geriatric community very seriously.
The potential infringement of IHUB's copyright is your verbatim copying of postings by other members and reposting them on other boards. I can't for the life of me imagine that reposting your own words elsewhere would be considered anything more than Littering.
HA ha the irony !!
Coming from a known multi alias liar thats funny!!
You posted in 3 forums on two boards within minutes of each other that there was an "ongoing" 100% verified SEC investigation of ONEV with potentially devastating results.
You said that ONEV does not own MCC.
You said that MCC was never for Sale at Compusa.
You said that ONEV did not hold shareholder meetings or issue proxy's.
You said ONEV was a guaranteed scam.
You continously violate IHUB "use of content" by copying posts from this board and reposting them on Raging Bull, which is a violation of IHUB's policy
The content available throughout the site is the property of InvestorsHub.com, Inc. and is protected by copyrights and trademarks. You agree not to reproduce, transmit, repost, distribute, sell, publish, broadcast, or in any other way use any of the content without our written consent.
Have you obtained written consent to repost IHUB postings on the Raging Bull board ??
Removing posts made by
a known individual who has repeatedly posted patently false and potentially criminal statements about ONEV, is not censoring, it is more akin to cleaning out the thrash
Such as this totally false statement about an "ongoing SEC investigation":
Posted by: Bullwinkle959
Why no interest in SEC SB2 investigation?
I would think that any time the SEC is looking into an area upon which your entire infrastructure relies for liquidity, it would be of major concern to all shareholders....it could be fiscally catastrophic for the company.
One could be justified in assuming that these false and misleading posts appear to be designed to manipulate the stock by someone who may have an extreme short position.
One only has to look at the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Grand Jury Indictment of Elgindy to find such similarities:
Reference: findlaw.com /hdocs/docs/fbi/uselgindy502ind.pdf
EOC:KMB
F. #2001R02074
ELGINDY.IND1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I N D I C T M E N T
Cr. No.
(T. 15, U.S.C., §§
78j(b) and 78ff;
T. 18, U.S.C., §§
371, 1503, 1951(a),
1962(d), 1963, 2
3551 et seq.)
- against -
AMR I. ELGINDY,
also known as “Tony Elgindy”
and “Anthony Pacific,”
JEFFREY A. ROYER, and
DERRICK W. CLEVELAND,
TROY M. PETERS and
LYNN WINGATE,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
At all times relevant to this Indictment, unless
otherwise indicated:
INTRODUCTION
The Short Selling Scheme
.....
2. After the defendant AMR I. ELGINDY short sold the
stock of certain companies, ELGINDY and others engaged in various
manipulative activities designed to lower the price of such
stock, including spreading negative information about the
companies.....
......Once the information was publicly available,
ELGINDY and his subscribers also posted it on various Internet
bulletin boards, chat rooms and on related websites, often
assuming fictitious identities to do so.......
Market Manipulation
6. Often, after short selling the stock of a Targeted
Company, the defendants AMR I. ELGINDY, TROY PETERS and DERRICK
W. CLEVELAND, together with others, coordinated the release of
negative, and sometimes false, information with short selling in
a manner designed to exaggerate the negative market sentiment for
the stock........
........7. The defendants AMR I. ELGINDY and TROY PETERS,
together with others, sometimes reported negative information
about the Targeted Companies to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) in order to initiate or hasten regulatory and law
enforcement action, which they knew would cause the stock prices
to fall sharply once such action became public. [/I]
While "hamstrung financing"
may be a new terminology. But it no doubt belongs in the same group of "assumptions from calculations" about ONEV that previously came up incorrectly that there was a an ongoing SEC "kiss of death SEC" investigation. Or that ONEV never owned the MCC, or as I recall that the MCC product was never for sale at COMPUSA.
I wouldn't waste your time!!
Sleazy Neal is just an Elgindy wannabe who deliberately and repeatedly posts knowingly false ststements, and has for years.
He told us that ONEV was under a current devasting SEC investigation. That ONEV did not own MCC, that it was never for sale at Compusa, that there were no shareholder meetings or proxy's, and on and on.
He obvioulsy has a plan that has never worked, ignoring him will bother him the most. Trolls need a dialog to survive.
Ain't that the truth !!
Kudos for keeping the riff raff off of here.
Neal can go pop veins over there when his SEC
cons do not work.
I believe that Intel program that you are referring to only invests/loans to non public companies. At least that is the way it was a year ago.
I assume that by now someone has explained how to find stock filings and read them in the correct order,
Do not be embarrased on account of your error, it is a common mistake made by "newbies" trying to do due diligence for the first time.
Your local library should have excellent beginner tutorials on how to research publically traded companies.