"I believe you have stated that you own no stock in Nanologix so what reason could there be for your stated interest in his character?"
I'm not going to tell anyone whether I own a stock, what my social security number is, or my home address. I'll leave that up for other people to waste their time speculating.
"Are you really comparing the CEO to Warren Buffet? Why?"
Warren is the standard of transparency. He's the measuring stick to which every other CEO in business should be measured. That is not solely my opinion, but of the majority of every successful investor in the market today. Of course, my definition of a successful investor is someone who has a achieved a long term track record of success and works in the trade as a professional rather than a kitchen-top investor.
"This is a pink sheet non-reporting company that appears to have some new technology in their BNP, BNF, and N-Assay and an interesting twist on petri plates with new packaging."
It's non-reporting only because the CEO decided to stop reporting, not because of its listing classification. I invest in Pink Sheets and OTC's exclusively. I'd never invest in one that was not transparent unless a court forced them to be transparent (in the case of a bankruptcy). The BNP and BNF technology is not "new". According to my DD, they are both 12 years old and have 8 years left of patent protection. The permeable membrane is the foundation of most of their patents. When that runs out, so does the protection of nearly all the rest of their products that were based around it.
"Where is the operating manual that says a reduced traffic ticket equates to a character flaw of some sort?"
Is it or is it not against the law to drive 90 miles per hour in a 55 zone? Seems to me the law, which is largely based on the moral code, is considered the "operating manual"; but that's just common sense to some.
"If you want to cite character flaws, I heard the previous CEO employed a federally convicted (16 separate counts) and one-time disbarred attorney from Chicago Illinois as the company corporate counsel and that Mr. Barnhizer fired him after taking control of the company."
The previous CEO has very little relevance to Nanologix. He no longer works for the company, nor has he for several years, therefore I have little concern for him.
"I'll go with the guy who gets a traffic ticket any day over the guy who hires an attorney with federal convictions."
Since the "guy who hires an attorney with federal convictions" isn't even an option and has absolutely no relevancy to the company, you're stuck with "the guy who gets a traffic ticket" because he thinks driving 90 mph on a 55 in his Porsche makes him look cool, or for whatever asinine reason he chose on that particular day.
