Can we say repeat post? Not once, but twice. And my response to that was as I previously stated. Do you just have these copied in Word somewhere and just post every week. Is this a basher's script that you are using. Also, refer to post #245. This look vaguely familiar. Can we really trust anything you say at this point.
Posted by: Jimmy Quick
In reply to: xxplatinum who wrote msg# 140 Date:9/18/2007 10:28:15 AM
Post #of 248
Oh, so it would have been better if the company would have just went heels up and us not get anything out of it. If you have to sell shares to raise capital to keep the company afloat while you are designing your new products, that sounds like a good decision by the CEO not a bad one for the shareholders. Think about what you just posted again, and maybe you will see it differently.
Your two posts, which are still on this board
Posted by: xxplatinum
In reply to: Jimmy Quick who wrote msg# 136 Date:9/17/2007 11:40:42 AM
Post #of 247
Interesting, the company only had 32 million shares
or there abouts after the 3 for 1 reverse split and
Mr. Tan said the company wasn't selling anymore shares.
Now you say shares could be bought up to last April
and now we know there are 48 million shares outstanding.
There even could be more shares outstanding, who knows.
The more shares outstanding, the more difficult to sell
the company, especially when the revenue has been small.
Posted by: xxplatinum
In reply to: Jimmy Quick who wrote msg# 138 Date:9/18/2007 10:08:45 AM
Post #of 248
I'll bet he wan't selling them for 5 bucks a share!
I'll bet he wasn't selling them for a buck a share!
When the company executed the 3 for 1 reverse split
there were 32 million shares outstanding. Looks like
he did the split so he could start selling more shares
again. That's not good for the shareholders.
"To Give Anything Less Than Your Best, Is To Sacrifice the Gift." - Steve Prefontaine
