Replies to post #4024 on Breitling Energy Corp fka BECC

[FM II]

A completely different company, with different officers and employees that had no prior connection to Breitling.

I know that and implied that in the very post about BERX.

There is no getting around that Bering had negative shareholder equity. I mean that in the way everyone but you uses it, assets-liabilities.

Specifically, what assets did Bering have?

As I said before, Bering Exploration was a struggling company with a decent share structure and public float, with assets and liabilities that may have been advantageous to Breitling as they went public.

That's a lot of speculation. Bering was not a struggling company; it was a corpse.

He didn’t do that. He was conservative and tried to do the right thing for everyone involved, including the shareholders of BERX.

I suppose there is some substantive difference between taking 90% of a company and taking 100%. What stockholders were protected? After the creditors and CF et al took their share, what was left?

[FM II]

Breitling has not been a public company for five years as you have falsely claimed and it existed for about ten years before going public, not the six or eight that you incorrectly stated.

Just the fact that you stated "six or eight" years demonstrates that you didn’t know and were just guessing.


I have already answered those assumptions. The fact that you don't believe me is of no consequence whatsoever to me and....no one else cares.

[FM II]

The facts here have never been in dispute. Never, ever. The fact that you keep post clips documenting things is getting weird. I am not going to dig through my notes about something that doesn't matter, but by memory, CF and Joe Simo, formed up an LLC in Oklahoma with much the same name as the Texas Corporation. CF was running CI Hosting at the time.

The whole discussion of the five or six years, which was a guess since it had absolutely nothing to do with my point, surrounded the fact that Breitling had not come up with any innovation while calling itself innovative. I am unaware of CF calling Breitling innovative when it was in its LLC form, so in that context, from memory, I went back to the Bakken News Fiasco. Before that, Breitling did little advertising, CF had a radio show, but it was fairly new, I think.

Breitlingoilandgas.com did not coming into existence until 2009 based on Internet Archive, which seems like a good point to pick as to when Breitling began pretending to be a company large enough to innovate.

Reaper, I know that the fact that you could not come up with an innovation was disconcerting for you and you had a lot of reasons for latching onto that little piece of irrelevancy. I have to tell you, it comes off as you having no understanding of context.

On the other hand, most people were probably completely distracted from the fact that Breitling had never come up with an innovation in 10 years.

Since we are now fully aware how many times you were unable to refute my substantive points and we are well aware you have nothing positive to say about Breitling, I can fully understand why you can't let this go, but really, and I mean this sincerely, you should stop; it is not helping whatever point you have left.