Fringe, you're losing it, getting defensive over reasonable questions and concerns regarding the transparency of this company. You have had private conversations with the principals, over which you express positive opinions but pointedly by your own admission withhold many of the concrete details, and conclude that the retail shareholders will participate grandly in the benefits. Please be aware that without similar personal conversations, the vast majority of shareholders must necessarily form their assessments on what is officially communicated by the company, and, for a few, perhaps second hand from personal communicators such as yourself.
Regarding your specific concerns, see itemized responses below.
FR: How long have you been a 'retail bagholder' exactly? Mind me asking if you actually hold shares?
NC: As I have said a few times on this board, I own about 1.8 million shares at a DCA of about .0021. I first bought at .0009 on 8/12/05, after observing the chart for about a year.
FR: "And, what dilution are you talking about here? (If it's the PP shares being issued you are referring to, you had better do some research, say telephone Mr. Godin and the TA, before you respond, so you don't look stupid)."
NC: I was refering to your statement in message #2605 on this board responding to onefreedude, quote, "You forget those 120MM shares recently created, as yet the public has not been told the why, but we suspect they are part of a PP." I may have misinterpreted your reference, but I shouldn't have to periodically contact the company to see "what's up"; I should receive PRs like everyone else. I have tried to contact the company, no response so far. Your "don't look stupid" comment is defensive and combative, and not appropriate for a trading professional.
FR: "I have emailed Ed Godin three times, without response. He doesn't seem to like that system. But, we have talked on the telephone, easily, at least that often. I suggest you do the same."
NC: Why have an email address featured on the company web site and labled "CONTACT US" that they don't intend to support? Looks like I will indeed need to phone Mr. Godin. Do all shareholders need to do so also to find out what is going on?
FR: "What reorganization are you talking about? That claim is a piece of junk. We are only speculating here, and you immediatley turn the phrase as if it were fact. In three posts from now you will hope to have a headine reading somethign to the effect that "EKWX is Screwing Retail Bagholders on Reorg Play"."
NC: What "claim"? I made no "claim". I wrote in message #2613, "Evidently, what with the large dilution, possible PP and reorg, and whatever deals are in the works, access to the important investment info is reserved for the big players and insiders." Note that I said "possible PP and reorg", referring to the speculation in your own previous posts ("possible" = "speculation"). I was not stating this "as if it were fact", indeed, quite the opposite. The remainder of your statement is not worthy of comment.
FR: "You wrote "access to the important investment info is reserved for the big players and insiders." WTF are you talking about? Are you suggesting that we be let in on inside stuff, before it is time do do so? Do you think we should have a seat at the table to listen in to and contribute to discussions between the deal makers?
NC: No, once again you've misinterpreted my comment (intentionally, so as to prove a point?). There is a wide gulf between giving away bargaining info, and keeping shareholders totally in the dark. So far, Godin has erred heavily toward one side, IMO.
FR: "Just what important investment info do you think a non-reporting pink should be giving you, Mister Big Shot? I happen to think, and I will reiterate, that Ed Godin has been notably transparent in his delaings with us. Not the greatest communicator, but once you go to him and connect, he is right there with what you need."
NC: Ekwan-X does not need to be a reporting company, nor do I need to be a "Big Shot", in order to reasonably expect timely and substantive information disseminated as to what is going on in a company that I own in part. Mr. Godin has NOT been "notably transparent" with the overwhelming majority of shareholders, but perhaps only with those who have personally contacted him. Are you suggesting that I, and each and every shareholder, need to personally phone up Godin to find out what is going on? How often?
FR: "OK, Chicken, the gloves are off. Bring the barbeque sauce buddy. I am UP for this."
NC: I don't know why you've chosen to try to turn this into a personal battle. I'm not interested. My point is that Ekwan-X has not been adequately forthcoming via generally available news channels as to where it stands in implementing its business plan. If you wish to disagree, fine, but let's keep a basic level of respect and professionalism, okay?
NC
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
