Replies to post #80974 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[dgplexus]

I meant, "Porgie Tirebiter," not "Frogdreaming." But the rest of the message, was as I intend.

Daniel

[Porgie Tirebiter]

In response:

"So, when DNA Ancestors says it is currently running DNAPrint Genomics' AncestryByDNA tests, in-house, in their lab in Australia, that means to you, "it's looking pretty clear this company no longer transacts anywhere"?"

By transactions, I guess I mean't revenue producing activities for DNAPrint Genomics. Are these Australians paying a royalty? If so, to whom?

"I wonder what a company has to do, to satisfy your personal definition of "transacting business."

A 10-Q would suffice.

"But what you insinuate is way beyond what is reasonable and substantiated.'

I'm not insinuating anyting. I'm just reporting and commenting on my own and other's observations. Observations which seem reasonable, because there is some substantiation here.

On the other hand (ahem), it could be said that posting links to scientific papers which may mention Tony Frudakis, genomics, personalized medicine, -- mentions of "very undervalued IMHO", or that Barack Obama is "big on this stuff" may not only qualify as insinuation, but conclusions drawn from such may also be considered to be unreasonable, because they are not drawn from observation, just pulled from some fuzzy sort of ... Oh, I don't know, just fuzzy stuff.