Replies to post #233075 on Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc (fka SPNGQ)

[patchman]

Musicalchairs, understanding that dilution took place is not rocket science. this lack of fact is exactly how far did they go although it appears that they went pretty close to 3 Billion shares.

If you don't think you were diluted, look carefully at the past years filings in which they issued shares to RME EVERY quarter and then look at the most recent lawsuit in which SPNG admits that they went to RME for their investment in SPNG this September. what them makes you believe that nothing happened between February and September?

Your where are the facts comments are getting old because there are facts available if you look for them instead of denying they exist.

[DueDillyFirst]

you seem to be very

emotional about persons commenting on information floating around in the public venue...

there is a purported copy of a shareholders report from June on the internet... source uncited

the two theories that I have heard on it are:

1) the mysterious, very powerful, NSS group have fabricated it in order to discredit management;

2) or insiders have been printing shares in the basement, not disclosing related party relationships, allegedly forging legal opinion letters (also on the internet and also sources uncited), issuing press releases that there are 722mm SO, also monkeying with the AS 2b or now 3b, approving RS and then revoking the approval, etc.

So either there is a huge NSS of somewhere as low as maybe 300-400mm to as high as 1.2b-1.4b,

or someone has been issuing and selling the crap out of shares...

theories - I subscribe to OCCam's Razor... the simplest answer is most likely the correct one... no mysterious conspiracy group

or maybe its neither, or both...

besides - here is the insider dicslosure on yahoo...

MAJOR DIRECT HOLDERS (FORMS 3 & 4)

Holder Shares Reported

No Major Direct Holder info Available for SPNGE.OB

Now how can that be? No Forms 3, 4, or 5's... hmmmm... didn't Sarbanes Oxley make a huge deal about that? not to mentio the requirements under the Act.

Stop saying "No! it isn't so!!" in the mirror and make up your own mind...

[Pennyprof]

Heres a fact. They decided to finally announce a formal increase in the A/S after they found out they were being investigated by the SEC. 2.75 O/S sounds very reasonable to me.
http://pinksheets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=6815484

I also took note that today TDA doesn't recognize SPNGE today, they're now saying that the symbol has changed back to SPNG. And....Pinksheets is saying that on the company info tab, that SPNGE is now listed as OTC market tier being GREY MARKET.

Perhaps you should stop accusing people of spinning things and jump on board that class action lawsuit announced yesterday.

[DueDillyFirst]

I agree, which is why I posted this.

I want to see it all for mayself and make my own informed decisions. I take it for what it is - if it is an unknown source, I am not going to carry it as a flag down main street...

but I am also not going to let pumpers and blind, inexperienced longs Pied Piper me from village to village either...


Posted by: DueDillyFirst Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 4:46:23 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 233093

People want to know the facts - the truth

the good, the bad, the ugly.

The Company has that obligation in all of its communications and filings.

Don't just tell me the good stuff. Tell me all of it. I will make my own decisions.

It would seem that the goal of a moderator is to...well moderate.

Maintain the rules of the forum; and maintain a balanced presentation of ALL the information, good and bad.

SPNG has been on the planets radar screen for the last several months - top ten lists here, top ten lists there... professional and amateur investors alike can't have missed it, whether they had a position or not.

It would be nice if the ibox had all of the info posted.

Especially considering that one moderator had a compromised agenda - what that was I dont know or care; but it should be cleaned up a bit. please. Insteead of having to wade through thousands of post in order to find any piece that might not have made it to the cheerleaders ibox.

I've also asked for sources on some information - like the partial June shareholder list. It is not complete. some have alleged that it could have been altered - but it is out there on the internet, therefore public. If you cant cite the source state so please. It would influence its reading.

Same with something like this, which is in the ibox, under 'proof of Costco sales":
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39779973

what the heck is that? where did it come from?

there is nothing wrong with a request for BALANCE in the presentation. And wanting to know all of it - the good, the bad and the ugly - doesnt necessarily make you a basher - its good due diligence.