Replies to post #1880 on CBQ, Inc. (China Business Quotient) (fka CBQI)

[Da !]

Bix, I have a new nickname for you: Gollum. You twist and whine and spin as pathetically as Tolkien's fictional character.

Sure the word ENTIRELY never appeared in the Q. It didn't need to. There is nothing vague about the statement from the 10Q that I and Gary have posted for your benefit:

"Revenues decreased by $1,519,708 from the quarter ended March 31, 2000. The decrease is a result of a change in the company's business model in its subsidiary, Quantum Distribution."

Those two sentences indicate quite clearly that the $1.519 million decrease in revenues resulted from the change in Quantum Distribution's business model. It doesn't say "is in part a result." It says the decrease is a result of that change. There is no assumption necessary.

Now, as for your quandary over whether the decrease was from core or non-core business, I think it is a no-brainer (which means it is probably still difficult for you): Quantum Distribution was not part of CBQ's core business. The revenue decrease was a result of a change in Quantum Distribution's business model. Therefore, the revenue decrease did not result from core business. On top of that logical progression, you have the company's IR attesting to the same statement: the decrease did not result from decrease in core business.

If that is not enough for you, then why don't you call the company? Why do you insist on your Gollum act? Because you didn;t get your "preciousss" shares in a private sale from the company?

Once again, if you feel that the statement in the Q is misleading, then you should contact the SEC and initiate an investigation.