Replies to post #282705 on Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc (fka SPNGQ)

[Mingy]

I couldn’t care less what fund owns 160M shares, who they are is not important. What is important is the fact they own 49% of the companies outstanding shares, 160M. Spongetech could have zero profit, the fact that more shares are officially owned than the Outstanding shares, proves Naked Shorts. All they need is a way to trigger the short squeeze and all longs get paid.

Of course spongetech does have profits, huge profits actually. So you have a great company, great products, insanely undervalued, that has a huge naked short position built into the stock, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the huge upside.

Your risk is 3 cents, your upside is unlimited. Companies fair value is $3.4, factor in the shorts squeeze and who knows how high this puppy could go.

YA BABY

[cowtown jay]

Well, Patch, since you asked why we're supportive,

it's like you said, "Nothing has even been proven to be accurate to date." And that applies to you as well as to anything any of us say.

You scoff at the relative anonymity of the Pike and Signature Funds, when it could very well be that between them, they hold 60% or so of the Outstanding Shares. THAT'S what we care about. Who cares how large the funds are, or how easily you can Google search them? We're interested in the float, and the emerging degree of difficulty in obtaining shares. Those are far more important considerations about these funds than the insignificant points you raised. And I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm trying to be realistic.

You expect us to subscribe to your theory that Pike made this investment without accurate sales and share numbers. He's minutes away from SpongeTech, easily facilitating the completion of due diligence. And if a 10K was definitive proof of sales and share structure detail, we wouldn't be in this situation now, would we? It's asking more than is credible for us to believe that Pike would have made this investment without a thorough review of the company's performance by his financial staff.

Civil fraud suit by federal regulators? I don't see a Litigation Release on the SEC website. It may be that I've missed something. I haven't been following things too closely the last couple of days. Or is your statement inaccurate?

Round One of the lawsuits and NY Post articles didn't work out too well, did they? The company has stated the newest lawsuits are "without merit" and due to mutual performance issues. Based on how well the company did in Round One, we have reason to believe they will do well in Round Two, as well.

You asked for some degree of rationality from a Long. In each of the above paragraphs, I've attempted to provide just that.

That said, it is time for management to conclude this chapter.

Good luck, Longs ~~

jay