57tbird, the below is a quote from your first three paragraphs in post #7318. When you used 100% yeild in the third para. and used 90,000,000 shares in the 1st para., one could think (not assume) that you are stating that 90,000,000 is the # of OS.
Begin quote: "Buying 90,000,000 shares at $.07 = $6.3M and you control the company.
What would the payback have to be to recoup that investment in..say six years? What would BD's production (and NET revenues need to be on annnual basis?
Or, what would BD's production and NET revenues need to be to earn said investor(s) a 100% yield on their money?" END QUOTE
Next area of discussion:
As for as the past is concerned, my post not only included 2005, 2006, but ALSO INCLUDED, the info for 2007 that was on page 20 of 20 in the referenced report. I do believe that an investor needs to look at the past financials, current published info/their own DD, and future WAGs or SWAGS. If one does not, they will lose more often than not. I also realize the info was unaudited.
Thus, I respectfully disagree with the next two paragraghs that I have quoted below from your post #7336:
Begin quote, "Re addressing anything you referenced for 2005 and 2006, don't look for a response from me. For me, those years have absolutely NOTHING to do with the current state of BD, the events unfolding, or the current potential for the company.
You obviously feel differently, prefering to base past performances ahead of today's realities. Fine. Have good time analyzing the past." End quote.
Next area of discussion:
I tend to agree with most of the next paragraph (all but the last sentence) that I have quoted from your post #7336:
Begin quote, "I'll be busy trying to analyze the current and future possibilities and trying to make sense of it all, and hopefully forgetting about all of the past year's lies and fraudulent PR's, etc, etc. This is a whole new ballgame, with new players, new opportunities, new efficiencies, and, with the Good Lord's help, audited financials for 2007! BD's past is of no ongoing financial consequence to me." End quote.
Next area of discussion:
If you desire is to improve BDGR's PPS for current shareholders, WE can find a "COMMON GROUND" and work together with Spunky, Lou, etc.
I believe transparency is a necessity for BDGR CEO, directors, officers, shareholders, and posters on this board. Anything less in any area should be considered as dishonest, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Can we count on you in trying to improve BDGR's PPS FOR CURRENT SHAREHOLDERS????
If so, let "bygones be bygones".
Have a good day and I am looking forward to a sincere reply - even if it is only yes, count me in, etc, or whatever.
AI
