InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

1USGrant

06/20/05 10:52 PM

#28185 RE: ole vern #28184

I will second that Verne and what I think of that @#*&*@## cannot be written or they will delete my post however Lowell can post all the lies he wants to....figure that one out!!!
icon url

ltuccilnv

06/21/05 12:44 AM

#28191 RE: ole vern #28184

Excellent Vern eom
icon url

ustacud

06/21/05 6:19 AM

#28194 RE: ole vern #28184

Vern - Thanks, Character counts.

Dick
icon url

dr frudaky

06/21/05 7:03 AM

#28196 RE: ole vern #28184

ole vern

Thank you for sharing your feelings with me. I regret I have no idea what you are talking about concerning my supposed posting history and various aliases. Nonetheless, I do understand your frustration over the sad state of this investment and am sorry that the negative facts about the company posted by me have not been received well by you and others here.

I noticed with curiosity I am usually the first to post those negative facts, only to be followed by many other posters who begrudginly echo my same sentiments because the sad truth about DNAP cannot be denied. For example, I advised everyone of the Final Rejection of the DNAP patent application several days ago, but another poster just posted that news as if it were the first time. Everything I have been saying about DNAP on this board for a long time was summarized by that June 17, 2005 JM Dutton analyst report paid for by Frudakis.

I would only wish you and others here would kindly try to contain your emotions and try to discuss both sides of the picture in a civil manner instead of trying to attack me personally and attributing nonexistent agendas to me.

Please try to confine your discussions specifically to the point-by-point contents of my posts. If you cannot do this, then please do not read my posts. There are many on this board who really contribute nothing about this investment and I never read their posts because they are a total waste of time.

Thanks for your very kind consideration of my comments.

JMHO

dr f
icon url

stakddek

06/21/05 7:18 AM

#28197 RE: ole vern #28184

Ole Vern: Yeah we got trouble right here here in River City! Unfortunately our most active vounteers on the fire department feel multiple buckets of kerosene and ofal make for a pretty fire. Perhaps they believe the Big Lie told often enough etc.

A lot of us invested in DNAP for the science concept that still hasn't been destroyed by the bash brigade. We've seen setbacks, but we've also seen accomplishments. More will be learned today when the executives have to put up. I think few investors here are happy with monetary gains DNAP has achieved. Defecit Spending, and now dilution on the horizon make for rising tensions and despair. You've been around a long time and have watched DNAP for many years. I've been in DNAP a while too. When I get down on myself or feel bad with the constant bashing, I look at my original DD and try to look at things in the light of "why I got in" in the first place. I can't say the investment has gone well as an investment to this time. And it doesn't look all roses and orchids going into the future. But I have faith in Doctor Frudakis and feel the growing pains will abate. The gestation period isn't over, and so I look at my past reasons for investing and I continue on to term. The scalawags who "burn the wires" with negativity are doing so for a commercial interest. I find it hard to believe that so much effort is put to such an "unworthy" target as DNAP. Perhaps more telling is the vitriol sphewed by the ones who contend they are invested! Such humanists are they, that they lambaste the vehicle that could reward them financially. Unless of course they seek financial reward from destruction rather than sucess.

I expect much information to come forth from the shareholder meeting. A restatement of DNAPS goals, perhaps even a midcourse correction beyond what we've seen. I hope a vocal componenet of the attendees will hold feet to the fire, and not accept witticism like "Orchid will crash in 6 months". We have made an investment in DNAP. Not a contribution. Market forces have hindered our advancement, blind alley missteps, and the recent rejection of a submitted patent application is alas dishearening. It slows the process and more costly time must be expended to resubmit.

Heres to all us longs, we've supported DNAP when it was looking good, and now we have to choose to let our support flag in troubled times or believe in our original conviction and investment.

Stakddek