Replies to post #31036 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[stakddek]

Frogdreaming: Kind of busy for me these days but on your three facts, the middle one is as stated:

"Eyecolor0 said StockpimpDaddy is Tony Frudakis. Fact"

I take it then that you have reached your conclusion about the identity of SPD based on the accusation of Eyecolor0? We believe this is Kon------- because his posts under that name were used in the court record. The court record that argues that this unimpeachable source you value so highly was going about in a manner to harm DNAP? This person of such high moral character that he made an issue of going on RB and lambasting the company and the personel? This person of such high moral character and respectability that he had punitive actions taken against him? (his computer and other materials taken and held by the court). Not having accessed the court record, I do not know if further punitive action occurred, or a gentlamanly agreement was reached.

I find though that you have based your thought process on incomplete information and the crux of your assumption is propped up only with the word of a person who made a definite effort to destroy DNAP as a company, and went as far as to belittle Doctor Frudakis's contributions.


We haven't heard from eyecolor lately, are you so sure of accusations from such a source that you are willing to parade his placard here-a-bouts?

When dealing with people who are so involved in an attempt to destroy DNAP, it might be worthwhile to take those statements made by K as being his interpretation colored by his bitterness. Until a factual record can be presented, (as in a reading of the court record) I think it is a very weak foundation that you have based your assertations on. K was brought to the bar by DNAP. Not the other way around.

Stakddek

[Thelonegunmen]

frog your whacked...still doesn't make it fact lol

[gunnabeoneday]

frog, i don't worry, ever, about giving anyone an "opening", even you. i do care about establishing the truth and that's what prompted my initial question, and imo you haven't sold your case with the "facts" presented thus far. simple enough, don't make more of it than it is.

you enjoy the soapbox, i provided the opportunity, you failed to support your facts. no other way to summarize it.

if the shoe was on the other foot and it was you seeking "facts" to support someone elses comment, you sure the heck wouldn't allow the type of arguments that you've presented thus far pass your audit..



again you seem to be missing or selectively overlooking the MAIN issue i have with your statement"

"-Eyecolor0 is Kondragunta. Fact"



you have not supplied anything other than heresay to even attempt to support your statement


i believe your original post should have stated IMO because that's about all i've received thus far even though you've added some condiments to dress it up.