News Focus
News Focus
Followers 6
Posts 3330
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/26/2007

Re: Britpack post# 3799

Monday, 06/27/2011 3:39:58 PM

Monday, June 27, 2011 3:39:58 PM

Post# of 23971
OH man this is a joke if I ever saw one.

Firstly, you must understand that we were let down very badly by QASP. They stopped the agreed funding, suddenly and without notice, at a critical time in our programme. This caused enormous damage to our progress – right in the middle of our Croatia demonstration.



This seems awfully strange considering that Mineseeker existed as its own entity (or so they would have one thinking) prior to QASP involvement. This leave the question now:

If Mineseeker relied so heavily on QASP (a company with no real money or business on its own) how could it have been a fruitful investment for QASP shareholders?

Again...

We made an in good faith offer to QASP, via Joe on the above described 4% of common stock. I assume Joe put this to the QASP shareholders. He did not reply to us formally, although he informed by telephone that it was of no interest. We wrote back to him informing him that the offer was open until 21st of June. We received no response and the offer lapsed.



This is a company that needed funding just a few short months ago , but wanted 4% of a company that has no real assets? I wonder what the offer really was? I'm willing to bet it wasn't what shareholders would think it would be.

It seems to me that a section of QASP shareholders are determined, at all cost, to spoil any attempt by NHSH to make a deal with Mineseeker, although, the arrangement would obviously be to the advantage of most



This is pure BS. If Minseeker wants to merge, they can. As James Owens described it QASP is an "unrelated company" But then again how much sense does it make to say that a section of QASP shareholders is trying to stop a merger when they just made an offer to obtain 4% of the company?

As far as the accusations against Mineseeker and me personally, we are in the process of subpoenaing a website, Investors Hub, to identify the perpetrators of many false and malicious statements.
I am not in the habit of writing long diatribes but felt this story should be set on record.



Just like Dean? Still waiting on that one.

Shareholders can blindly follow this crap if they like, but the inconsistencies in this email alone are staggering if one takes a realistic look at it.

But then again:

However, Jeff DiGenova, argued long and hard for the QASP shareholders, stating that many had lost money – some their life savings- and some had only invested as they believed in Mineseeker.

on a company that NEEDED funding to operate.



fully reporting shows whether you are a good investment or bad. It takes the speculation out, and since it makes it safer, the ability to make multi bags is hampered. I'll take the unknowns here over a fully reporting POS any day

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today