GARY
Well Bix the problem I have with what you are doing is I know and have what you posted before. You only mention earnings twice before you got removed from Raging Bull. You have expressed a lot of scenarios that contradict what you posted earlier.
I told you before my only requirement in the integrity of a poster.
I have been silent about this comment for some time. It was the first time you offended me. This was uncalled for and represents irresponsible behavior as an EMPLOYED IR agent for CBQI. Lets look at the message you responded to. In retrospect, you may find it was olive branch(As intended).
Gary,
This conversation started because I expressed that it was my oppinion that CBQI's stock deflated because it "was" overvalued. When asked why I felt that way, I said it was due to a lack of earnings. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Does it matter? Lets cap the rhetoric and talk about the facts. I think you are nice guy and enjoyed having dinner with you. We will not agree on everything but don't have to. I bote to burry this teacher student thing and accept the fact that we have two different oppinions. Are there any time filing reqirements for an 8-K? If not, when is the soonest that we will learn how much stock did CBQI give away to acquire
Bix.
Your previous message include the comment:
You make reference to a "Broker Support Agreement" and the only place after searching through my notes and the internet, I could only that rhetorical phase find that was in the potential "1stinhealth" acquisition in March 2000, which did not close.
As an outsider looking in at this conversation, you would not recognize what has happened here. You do. I left this alone because it occured to me that perhaps the comments I made may have unknown implications on you as the employed IR rep. Granted, I do not agree with you on multiple fronts, but I have no agenda to harm or hurt you professionaly. You covered your tracks real well. My problem is rather than letting sleeping dogs lie, you call my integrity into question and then distort the facts in a mannor that it becomes "my word against yours."
Fine. It's over? No you do it again:
You say:
HUH? you use those variables to calculate the management's performance. I find it interesting that you do not like using proper evaluation variables in your opinions and comments about this security. You are being extremely bias and once you are challenged on your nonsense then suddenly only certain variables are acceptable.
That makes no sense
But the deduction of contracts from the annual run rate is being done and that is the filings and the results as per this last quarter. The discontinued operations apparently had 50% of the revenues and so apparently since the core business is a 50% GM the lost revenues would have had to be what for the GM to be 32% ... the GM on the lost revenues would had to have been aound 16% GM.
It is these little things that you selectively overlook. Now that the profit is coming and lacks just a bit to overcome the depreciation .. I will await your next selective bias.
:=) Gary Swancey
You are deliberately asking me to make revenue projections knowing that the "little details" are not being disclosed. Then you spin it a way that this is my fault? Sure I'll do the APRR and the ALRR. BUT ANSWER THE QUESTION! Where is the source? If you have none, its a damm shame your the IR because tells me you will post any nonsence that makes you look and CBQI look good. Combine that with the previous argument and we have a pattern of avoiding the truth.
FYI: In case you dont recall, I indicated the comment was made on the telephone and you responde: "I CANT FIND IT ON THE NET." Why look on the net for documentation of a verbal conversation? Better delete that post too.
AI
