Replies to post #2857 on Telynx (fka TLYN)

[xZx]

dd why are you here? why such an intense interest in the goings on of our humble little stock? such incredible tenacity... it has occurred to me that you may be motivated by the lure of financial gain. or do you just want to save us from losing our money? if so, judging by your own constant, vitriolic remarks... you came a bit too late... LOL

please, if you might be as explicite as another basher once was, can you tell me which market maker i should sell all my shares to when i get sufficiently scared? i think it was HDSN if memory serves... :)

[fringe_remnant]

Due

You are the one who brought it up. Why don't you defend the canny observance? Do you expect the Operation Expenses to be explained in the Q's?

Do you actually think Talieh, who didn't assume his current position until this year and is having quite the time pulling this together, would be so stupid as to create conditions for criticism by putting up numbers on activities that couldn't be verified and accounted for? You seem to intimate as much with you incessant, and ridiculous, ramblings.

What's your gripe with the K anyway? Where are these so-called "inconsistencies and omissions"? You can't, and won't even go there. Unless of course, you are talking grammar, syntax and spellink mistooks.

Yeah, you're laughing all right. Right on over the cuckoo's nest.

Thursday morning cometh, quickly now.

fringe

[jurisper]

Due: It was sales & marketing for a few $k, but the bulk was for just unexplained "services".

I & (I guess you) assume that those were IR "services", but I guess it's possible some part of it went to product development. If not, where did "Telynx III" come from & what paid for it?

Telynx management might be interested in a judgement delivered in Utah last year against Ted A. Madsen, the principal of their auditors, Madsen & Associates CPA's. He was found liable for breach of fiduciary duty as administrator for a benefits scheme which was looted by the investment advisor, a friend of his. For years, Madsen simply wrote checks on the scheme to his friend's company, without any kind of verifiation of how the funds were being applied.

See http://www.kscourts.org/CA10/cases/2005/05/04-4006.htm for an appellate court decision in the matter. Main case was 2:00-CV-927 in Utah fed district court, central division. The court found that Madsen's lack of prudential care enabled the investment advisor's embezzlement.