Replies to post #64230 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[chrisbaskett]

Bag, I think as you say DNAG will go on with or without 'us.' I do believe Tony was sincere in the beginning. Perhaps unexpected events and the business world at large were too much to ask of sincerity. But I do not think myself a fool for believing. If one can not believe in something larger than oneself than one is smaller than I care to be. Perhaps it is 'over' in terms of longs who stumbled through the RS ever seeing a significant return or even breaking even. Today I voted for Tony and Hector and chose not to do the same for Richard. I thoroughly resent Monica's salary vs Karen's. I resent the raises for the big three, I resent the stock give aways. If management proves me wrong I will be the first to admit it. I can not see to date that the words "shareholder value" have had more behind them than over-fed bottoms.

But hey...

[retro]

I believe he's a man who used to...and probably still does...post on these message boards. I also believe the content of those posts disclosed a questionable character. Finally, I believe the former poster "eyecolor" came as close as any to hitting the nail on the head.

The decision to buy the stock this compnay sold was mine. The decision to diagree with the sales method used is mine also.

[thtideisturning]

Bag8ger … I can listen as well as the next guy … &, aware of the passage of time, stand mindful of the processes … but there are ways of doing things & there are ways of doing things … & things have been done, in the midst no doubt of the malignancies of market, in ways that give a guy an itchy feeling … Not my intention to drop cherry bombs in the head during recess … In the words of Louie Anderson, “I want beets!” …There are ways. & these folks of means were not above discounting the early investors as mere bb traders, while Doc Frudakis spoke to them as if they were souls & made mention of apt retention. You, sir, are an earnest man, I have not one doubt about that. It doesn’t prove anything with regard to the BOD of said investment. Was I a trader or an investor? An investor! But if I just happen upon DNAP now, I’ll be in the authentic catbird seat, won’t I? Far more so than 5 years ago when it seemed to matter. My goal was to hold viable shares, from the grass roots level, in an issue of importance. Importance, which looked to be on the cusp of probably the most vital medical paradigm. On a hunch that Doctor Frudakis was/is an earnest man, my 20K purchased me this board & your fair-minded consideration. & not much else but the patience of a sea turtle 8 miles out from the Galapagos & heading south by southeast … around the horn … & up to the Gulf of Mexico coastline to see if I can find the light of day shining brightly on this issue. I think they kowtowed to the trader because they have been traders as a means to an end. Whether or not a group of traders working for a larger group of traders took them down is not as much of an interest to me as whether or not ethical minds could have prevailed. So if there is even a hint of truth in this then there was a gambit of a sort, & that is not how your good doctor presented it. So given the benefit of the doubt: okay, good man; but how many good people are fodder to the take down so that one good man can rise?

I’ve read your posts for years &, unlike the frogger et al., I understand your vehemence.

[JMHO]