edit4: how is it "sneaky" shute?!?!
i always label my edits & even numerate them.
now "FOUNDERS'SHARES" . . . that was some seriously sneaky brown...
& so was the 100% write-off on Peter's "loan" when the stock was sub-buck & then his payment w/a 100K share dump into the hype-spike.
now that was "sneaky."
IMO
edit: Larry, even though i have -0- wavx right now, i'm hanging around to see how this all plays out & under the right set of circumstances might consider re-entering.
by all means, please continue to post yer learned T/A opinions... they are tasty thought morsels.
edit2: the burden is entirely upon you shute to prove the point. many many MANY companies PR the fact that an S-3 is effective (heck, SSP just released one such PR a week or two ago). the mere fact that Wave has not done so in the past does nothing to establish that they would not do so in the future (assuming the share registration is eventually declared effective).
considering the widespread speculation about the numerous allegations of wrongdoing, it would seem to make considerable sense that Wave would issue such a PR in order to mollify the wavoids... AND, when (if?) the SEC does declare them effective, it is one PR that Wave would certainly be w/in their rights to issue.
& btw, wavoids always try to discredit the dissenters' contentions by foisting a "what's in the past is in the past" theorem... funny how malleable that logic becomes when it is turned around.
edit3: shute, is it okay for me to use obscenities in my future posts even if i'm not a sprague apologist? y'know, what's good for the goose & all that...
edit4: gotta go!
