InvestorsHub Logo

pual

12/23/04 12:36 PM

#6185 RE: Rawnoc #6184

"2 million shares outstanding have 3 times the potential versus 6 million toward the unknown."

Not if you do not know what the proceeds of the additional shares were used for.

Example: When there were 2,000,000 shares assume we effectively had morgaged or borrowed against our presumed ownership of Veltex Mills. Now assuming there are effectively 6,000,000 and Matin got (considering recent market) $ 3.00 value/share) and used it to buy back the debt, thereby getting back the ownership of Veltex Mills (generating the claimed revenues:

At 2,000,000 shares we were owning !/ 2,000,000th of close to nothing.

At 6,000,000 shares we now would owned 1/6,000,000 of something generating a $7,000,000 profit in 2004.

What is better.

This being said everything you said (same for what I say by the way) is pure speculation.

The only thing we KNOW is that: "Matin say Veltex generates a profit of $7,000,000 per year".

Considering his credibility, the fact is we know nothing and your 6,000,000 shares are as meaningless as the 2,000,000 alluded to by Matin in his PR's.



pual

12/23/04 12:47 PM

#6188 RE: Rawnoc #6184

"But, again, for a guy who doesn't care how many shares are outstanding.....you talk about that topic an awful lot."

Find a place where I am affirmative about the number of shares are out there.

Second I do not discuss the number of shares outstanding. I just challenge someone "pretending to know" or "possibly having mislead" or is "lying outright" repeating continuously for 2 weeks the same message, not even trying to qualify what it means ... for whatever reason (misunderstanding or other).

"I have neither recommended anybody buy or sell"

May be not in that many words (I never said you were stupid) but you darn well know what your "continuous repetition of an unverifyable information" is doing (at least you hope so).

On that basis, I do not see much difference between Matin and you.

One is repeating again and again a very positive story. The other one is repeating a very (assumed) negative one.

In both case, no one YET can validate what they realy talk about.