Replies to post #7875 on Consumer Automotive Finance Inc (CAFI)

[arbpro]

The damned "form 10" thing again!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No, actually it is the "credibility" thing. If the Great Scott had told the truth about filing form 10 back in October 2004 we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?


Geeeeze arbpro, give it a rest!! ...Will ya?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sorry, but I have my second wind now. At least, I am not claiming NWAU IR sent me an "invoice." LOL

changed their "form 10" direction and decided to go for the much more powerful NAUG, the Form 10 route became moot. EVERYTHINH you are wanting to see in that damned "Form 10" will be executed in these fully-audited financials and the qrtly. report released in November.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hmmm....I can't believe you said that. Powerful NAUG? That is big foot size LOL. NAUG has NOTHING. No revenues, no products, no customers, no business plan, and without the Great Scott coming to its rescue, NO FUTURE. And November of what year? The Great Scott told us the company would be fully reporting in November 2004. Did it happen? So his lies of November 2004 are ignored, in favor of his promises of November 2005.

You're like a stinkin' arm chair stock quarterback. You cry because the quarterback called an option play at the line and threw a pass instead of the previously-planned run>>>>>>>>>>

Hmmmm....Eprom in case you haven't noticed the NCAA and the NFL have PLAY CLOCKS. If the play is not executed within a 30 second area, A FOUL IS CALLED. And I guess, using your analogy, the Great Scott had his team at the line of scrimmage in September 2004, and now is attempting an audible more than a year later. Sorry, Eprom surely you can come with a better example than that. Think HARD!

I'd rather NAUG be what they are RIGHT NOW with 2 YEARS of FULLY AUDITED FINANCIALS COMING rather than be some old Stink Sheet company relying solely on Form 10's. We get the same results ...but with a FAR more powerful company!>>>>>>>>>>>>

Say WHATEVER you want. Spin it any way you want. Ignore it as much as you want. But I will keep reminding you that the words coming straight out of the company's mouth have been LIES, going all the way back to September 2004. If the Company had not lied it would have been fully reporting in 2004 and we would not be having this discussion. But the compnay LIES and you are left with the assignment of trying to defend blatant lies. GOOD LUCK, I like MY chances in that debate.