The Question and Answer Board

[But Anyway]

Bob, I have presented my case.

I have intentionally been ignoring the blatant accounting irregularities and inconsistencies in an effort to focus on reasons why they may exist.

When you have a free minute, glance at the contents of the post referenced below.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=760137

While I do not expect you to render a judgement on potentiality of misappropriation or misrepresentation however I have come to respect your opinion (you are very level headed IMO) and would be acutely interested in reading of your initial impression.

At the very least, the management of the company owes past and present shareholders, as well as the public market, a detailed explanation of this issue. From what I have gathered, when shareholders have inquired into why the corporation's percentage of ownership interest in the asset inexplicably dropped, they were stonewalled with some balderdash concerning reverse-splits and the like. Red flag.

As I have said elsewhere, if the asset concluded as meaningless or the management team since exponged from the company, the issue would be moot. However neither is the case, in fact the value of the asset (the performance of the underlying company), by all verifiable outside sources, was growing just as transparency of accounting for the divestiture began to deteriorate. Red flag.

The smoking gun is the dramatic ninety percent drop in the implied value of the asset (the value to e.Digital in consideration for parting with a percentage of their ownership) over a period of less than one year ending "on or about December 31, 1996 and January 2, 1997" (smell some tax reporting implications here? Red flag.). This drop in implied value does not correlate with the performance of the underlying company of the asset and calls into the question whether the divestiture of the corporation's asset were conducted in arm's length transactions.

I digress.

I believe I have adequately presented reason for concern (in fact "I know", however I won't get into that at this juncture), and concern sufficient to explore this issue more exhaustively with those interested in the same (ie. EDIG Thread, collective effort) without the constant threat of my posts facing deletion under "spam" rules.

Unfortunatley Tom ("Tinroad") has recently changed the rules of the EDIG thread, his intent is to benefit his motive in keeping "negativity" off the thread. Specifically, under his new rules, a post can now be deleted if it is not exhaustively referenced and documented with facts. However this rule is being broadly applied to what may be construed as negative messages and rarely, if ever, messages with the opposite tone. In other words he is once again censoring the thread although this time he is rationalizing his actions (to you and Matt) based on some bogus rule that is being injudiciously enforced.

Bob, Matt, you have a group of swindlers (not all on the thread but some, especially those who demand the voice of others be moderated) desperately struggling to juggle the last few balls of a failing ponzi-like scheme, running their nefarious business on YOUR site. The message threads are their instrument to bait new marks. Negative or more critical voices threaten to impede with their agenda.

Case in point, DABOSS, one of the more notorious and vocal promoters:

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=757193

"And at the heart of ihub's success, with regard to the EDIG board, are the controls in place which successfully deal with those whose sole purpose is to disrupt and distract the discussion of the business of the company between investors and potential investors."

(This message has quickly turned overly dramatic so I will end it with a stupid phrase before I bid adieu to the issues entirely)

Bob, you are either with us or you are against us.

Regards,