Net-Man - In response to your comment:
"As I understand your argument, FASC will have zero value simply because it will not trade in the same manner as it currently does."
This is not my position at all. My argument is that presented by the new moderators:
1. The honesty of Brian is seriously in question. He apparently lied to Charlie, and I believe it was Integral who pointed out a further area of deception.
2. Our new moderators also pointed out that almost, without exception, stocks in a similar situation to FASC, have left the stockholders high and dry--with nothing.
3. What assets that FASC has could be diverted to just insider interests, back salaries, etc.
4. The combined postings of Lucky, Janice, Integral, Sunspotter and Renee pose a likely scenario of the outcome of FASC. And they provide the type of balance that was discouraged before they came--as attested to by the way Sunspotter was treated, and others who tried to bring out the risk side of the equation.
I no longer have the buy orders in at .0005 and .0004 that I mentioned earlier. You further state:
"From a FASC perspective, it still comes down to sales and will the current management be able to make those happen?"
I think it really comes down to what management has been doing with past and present revenues--and the realities that our new moderators have presented to us. It would be good if the extreme risk side of this equation was encouraged, and presented. It has not been the case in the past--to the detriment of this board.- Dave
