Replies to post #20051 on Avalon Technology Grp (fka AVLN)

[Osback]

In my opinion the post is extremely relevant. The PPS is irrelevant. Patrick Downs is preventing the transfer agent or anyone else for that matter from knowing how many shares are outstanding for the company. Everyone knows where the price has been in the last 6 months, but we also know a number of shares have been flooded into the market since this email.

Why the gag? What is Patrick hiding?

Actions like this are indicative of fraud. Dilution is normally a part of any disclosure by any reputable legitimate operation, so why the hush? You be the judge. Visit pink sheets and see what they say about the lack of disclosure about relevant information.

Patrick hints of success but hides truthful information because as the old adage goes "buy the rumor, sell the news".

His PR's are rumor, his lack of real disclosure is the real news.

[IDS Watcher]

I think you need to double check your figures. This stock has never traded subpenny. In Sept. 2005, it was trading more or less in the 20’s. That is a big difference from 0.001.

The post I referenced was #10615. We just past 20,000. Do you really think anyone is going to go back nearly 10,000 posts to do research? I used the search function and knew what I was looking for.

And as for relevance, what could be more relevant than the number of outstanding shares and the float? Downs says it is 50 million O/S and a float of 7 million. Even the most supportive of the longs have said the float is in excess of 15 million. Stackedcash from HSM estimated O/S of 70 million and a float of 17-18 million. Where did the additional shares come from if not Downs and the company? Of course the T/A is gagged, so no one knows how many shares are out there. Are you comfortable with this? I know I am not. All we have to go on is what previous posters have reported after calling the T/A and emails from Patrick Downs himself.

As for my reposting something from the past; that is not outlawed in the TOU. This is from the Moderator’s Handbook

Note: When managing one of these boards, you have six reasons to choose from when deciding whether or not a post should be removed:
1. Duplicate – an accidental duplicate post by a member
2. Personal Attack – when someone attacks a person, with name calling, or relating to the messenger and not the message.
3. Spam – a message that is being posted promoting other sites, stock-related or not, that has no use in the discussion (for example, if your board is about Ford Motors, a link promoting amazing returns running a home-based business is worthless to the discussion).
4. Vulgarity – cursing of any kind unacceptable on your board
5. Violation of Privacy – posting of any personal identifiable information (email, real name, phone, address, etc)
6. Threat – someone threatening another member in some fashion
If it doesn’t fit into either of those categories, it should not be removed.[/]

This does not qualify as a duplicate. I am posting a specific comment about the size of the float and referencing another post to back up my claims. That is not a duplicate.

As I said in my PM to you, please let me know where I have strayed from the TOU and I will refrain from doing it again. I don’t believe I have. You are an assistant moderator. This is not your personal fiefdom. I understand you own this stock and want it do well, but that does not give you the authority or right to delete posts simply because you don’t like the content or find them annoying.

[Phil(Hot Rod Chevy)]

As a moderator it is your job to determine whether or not the post violates any of the TOU.

It is not your responsibilty, nor in your authority, to attempt to control the content of the posts.

People that overstep their authority are removed fairly quickly.

Have fun,
Phil

[life_in_the_oaks]

I am a tad confused, as I read the posts in question, before they were deleted, and the share counts were discussed, not the share price.

In the absence of audited financial statements, filings to the SEC, free release of outstanding share counts from the transfer agent, etc., the number of shares has MUCH more to do with the relative value to each shareholder, than the share price.

Dilution of ownership is a major issue, and prior to the gag on the transfer agent in late August/early september, had occurred to the tune of at least 7.5 million shares from Jan 1 2006 to that point.

That is 19% dilution, all while IDWD was professing to have incredible sales growth, saying they were about to relase financials to prove it, pay a dividend (lots of peeps waiting on that one), etc. Does it look like someone was selling into a pump?? Yes.

So, with all due respect, the old canard of "that has already been discussed, and anyone can go back and read about it" is myopically rude at best, and smacks of attempts to conceal information from new traders.

Besides, these issues, discussed at length or not, have never been resolved. No independant verification exists to either prove Downs' claims, or disprove them.

So they are fair game to be discussed, re-posted, dissected, argued, or, most importantly, when making a decision to take the final step in silencing someone........easily ignored.

But when you think about how easily full disclosure and filings would shoot down theories of scams and fraud, resolve unanswererd issues, and allow the price of IDWD to move towards stated buyout prices, etc......to claim irrelevance is wrong.

LITO