Arch, I have to disagree with you. I believe that this poster does indeed have a clue (along with several others) and has a history of introducing FUD directly or by subtle reference. Here are some examples from posts on this board. I personally see a clear pattern here:
“W2p's response to Phil seemed naive and immature and, at the very least, out of line. Philipabel presented arguments that should be of absolute concern to any investor.”
“This suggests Tony is the only one working on R&D.”
“The jury's still out on whether those share are restricted or not. If not, when all those shares hit the float, and if nobody's buying, .0135 will look good.”
“And as we all know, some of those steps have been and might possibly be again into something not too pleasant and usually found in barnyards.”
“Looks like just another bitter pill to swallow if you want to stay long. As always, more shares equals dilution now or later no matter how they are derived. Demand will be our only savior. If that demand can be created in a realistic way, we can look for reward. If not, the damage will be slow, painfull, and steady. Proceed at your own risk.”
“On reading of the development of Ancestry 2.0 into 2.5 and 3.0 I can't help but wonder who is performing all of this development work? The Indian scientists appear to be gone and Tony has been busy with bio conferences both here and abroad. There seems to be an obvious disconnect with reality here. Who is performing all the work? It is all so impressive on the face but it seems insurmountable for a seven employee company with only one very busy scientist (Tony) to accomplish all that is hoped for. I guess I just don't get it.”
“Are the Indian scientists still working for Dnap? If they are no longer with the company, who is working to further develop Ancestry, Witness, Statnome and Ovinome? Has Dnap discontinued development of these products in favor of pursuing the development of drugs?”
“Sorry Ming, but that answer isn't good enough. Have you walked into Dnaprint's lab and found him hard at work? Who did you get that answer from? And why could you get that answer and not me? Did you just assume it since nobody has said anything to the contrary? Their new website certainly doesn't supply it and is ominously vague about many things. The old website gave a much more detailed description and much was eliminated from the new one. Why did that happen? Legal reasons? It seems there are so many open questions that demand answers and these are just a few.”
“66fan, thanks, do you live in the area? Were they quite busy and was Zack also still present? How about the Indian scientists, any of them still there? Did you get a count on the total employees. Tia.”
“Anybody besides me think the company would better served if Tony stayed home in the lab and did research rather than touring the globe hitting all these forensics conferences? It may look impressive to see his name as speaker at a conference a half world away but I fail to see how that will ever add to the bottom line. Just an added expense and Tony gets a paid vacation on us. If we were an established company with a firm grip on a market niche with many devoted customers firmly emplaced it would make sense to try to branch out internationaly by attending international conferences to get the word out. But not at this point when we are struggling towards respectable revenues and accepting dubious financing. Jmho.”
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
