posted June 30, 2004 10:44            

quote:

---

Originally posted by penny-trader:
WOOOOOHOOOOOOOO i Quadrupled my position

---

posted June 30, 2004 10:44            

quote:

---

Originally posted by penguinking:
Hey Allstocks how are you today..

My guess the reason the stock is going down is due to the reference of daytraders in their phone message... or it could just be alot of people hate this new guy and think that he might be helping q. scam us.

Im not bashing just putting in mm opinion.
Im sending in a small group of my bravest penguins to investigate this matter.

---

WE ARE TURNING AROUND NOW. HOPEFULLY WE REACHED THE BOTTOM. GET THOSE FREAKING PENQUIN'S BUSY.

I WOULD BUY MORE--BUT WAS NOT REAL SMART AND HELD ON--THINKING RUN WAS INEVITABLE. THERE I GO THINGING. I HAVE WAY TO MUCH IN A PENNY STOCK AS IT IS. JUST HAVE TO HANG ON. SOMETIMES EASIER SAID THAN DONE!!

GREAT TIME TO BUY. MONEY TO BE MADE. I THINK THERE IS PANIC--BUT I THINK THERE IS MM'S ON THE MOVE ALSO.

GOOD LUCK TO US ALL.

posted June 30, 2004 10:45            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorforit72545:
There have been no changes. Everything is on track. This is exactly what the martket makers love to see. It won't go below .008 as a matter of fact it is already starting to go back up. You know what's happening here. Quite acting dumb it doesn't suit you.
It will be back over a penny before the end of the day.

Bob

Bo

---

lol, not acting dumb just saying it how I see it. fact is that this company does not look good for a serious gain. I really do hope you all make a killing. I am very serious about that. I just dont see it happening. However if I am wrong, which for your sakes I hope I am, I will be happy for you. Sincerely. However if you look at this all from a different persective (I used to look at it positivley) you might see that there are no real reasons to put money into this stock. I just see a thousand better companies out there that will and should outpreform this one... particularly ones that do what they say they will and put out pr's properly informing the investor(s). This does not seem to happen with the q. At this point the qbaby is severly undernurished and looks to be turning blue. How can I put money into a company that releases pr's and leaves messages that they seem to not follow up on or follow through with? remember that O/S count? I never heard anything about it although promised? remember that list of carriers they were going to announce? I did not hear anything about it? did you? the list can go on and on. I am only trying to state that this does not look good from an investors point of view. It looks good if you want to support the gay comuunity, which I do. They have rights and deserve television, aimed at them. However I dont think I will support them with my money. my dollars have better places to be invested. GLTY and all!

all of this is just my opionon and from memory, if I am wrong please point it out. And as always I reserve the right to change my mind, although at this point I dont see it happening... GLTA

posted June 30, 2004 10:45            

Really hurts watching it drop but if you believe in the company you know that in the future we will all see even bigger gains....do as Diana said and step away....unless you're like me loading up!

MM's are grinning today the *******s....if a PR is released and with the chart indicators obviousely revealing excellant buy in opportunities.

posted June 30, 2004 10:45            

quote:

---

Originally posted by penny-trader:
WOOOOOHOOOOOOOO i Quadrupled my position

---

posted June 30, 2004 10:49            

From: store@amazonherb.net
To: qbiddollar@yahoo.com
CC:
Subject: Re: Contact:
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:03:11 -0600

Dear _____

I've been working with Q Television's Webmaster for a couple of weeks on the banner add which you checked out this morning. Today was the first day it was posted and we are aware the link is not funtioning properly. We are working on the glitch now and it should be working correctly as you read this. Should you wish to go back to the site, even thou it displays the message, site not found, if you click on one of the tabs above you will enter the Amazon Herb site. Amazon Herbs has all information you wish I think on the site as per time in bussiness, research, history of the company, etc. Should you have any other question not answered their feel free to write me and inquire and I will endevor to answer.

I am an affillate of Amazon Herbs, not the company itself. I use and market their product, but am not involved in the research or production end of the company.

As far as Q television, I have not inquired of them their plans for revising their website. I would assume they will, but as it is a start up bussiness best I can tell, I would expect that to evlove with their evolution. I selected an advertisement on Q television's web site for the product as I feel the market addressed by Q television to enjoy the product. It is a 'natural health product' which also benefits our planet's enviorment as part of the companies goal is to purchase areas of the rainforest and cultivate the herbs without destroying the forests, which are so important to the general health of our planet's enviorment.

Thank you for your interest and , again, feel free to write me with any questions you may have. If you would, please acknowledge receipt of this email, to verify this portion of the set up is working correctly.

Sincerely,

Miles Colcock

From: store@amazonherb.net
To: <qbiddollar@yahoo.com>
CC:
Subject: Re: Re: Contact:
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:58:20 -0600

Hello

I am an archtitect by profession. One on my sidelines is the stock market and I ran across Q television in my ever ending seach for stocks. One type of company I look for is one such as Qtv which I percieve could have a niche and good market and could increase in price. Although I consider Qtv highly speculative, could go bust for all I know, but it could also be reaching a heretofore untapped market. I purchased it .0033 cent a few months ago and here is at 12 cents or so today. Its what I call a yo bet 'if you've ver played dice' 15 to 1 odds, so make a small bet on i, one that won't hurt if you loose it 100%.

The idea to place Amazon Herbs on the Qbid website was simply the result of my thinking Qtv's audience contains a large majority of people who are interested in their health, well being and open minded to non western health formulas, etc.

I have not had a great deal of success contacting anyone with qbid ,thou I have not tried very hard, other than their webmaster whom I don't think is a qbid employee, rather, a web designer and maintains their page. That is my assumption. I have heard others have the same luck when trying to reach the 'higher ups' at Q tv. It appears to me it is a very small company, prehaps too undermanned to field many calls. I don't really know.

Your address puzzles me. Are you somehow connected with Qbid?

Again let me know if I can help you in any other way.

Miles Colcock

quote:

---

Originally posted by realityinc21:
COULD SOMEONE CONTACT THEM AND SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AND WHY THEY ARE ADVERTISING WITH QBID?

---

posted June 30, 2004 10:51            

quote:

---

Originally posted by WinsumLosesum:
...But have we confirmed the OUTCOME of any of these lawsuits?

---

We do now and it isn't good.... here's the link:

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA63810&display=Top

Article starts here:
************************
Fourteen Indicted in Kids' TV Scheme

By LINDA HAUGSTED -- Multichannel News, 2/26/2001

A Colorado grand jury has indicted 14 individuals for securities fraud and other alleged crimes related to the promotion of children's programming network KidZtime to small-scale investors.

According to indictments unsealed last week by Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, the defendants and their Colorado corporation, Capital Funding and Financial Group, participated in an illegal investment "scheme" between 1995 and 1999.

Network affiliates raked in an estimated $47 million from investors in the United States, Canada, Holland, Portugal, Germany, Spain, the U.S. Virgin Islands and South Korea, according to the attorney general's office.

This is only the latest suit against the venture or its affiliates. To date, 21 states have filed suits related to the investment venture, known as either KidZtime or the Children's Cable Network, according to Colorado officials. Class-action lawsuits were also filed, including complaints in California and Colorado.

The Colorado case may also result in a change in that state's laws. Legislators are angry that it took Colorado a longer amount of time to shut the venture down than other jurisdictions.

Colorado officials began investigating KidZtime in 1996, but were unable to seek prosecutions because the state does not have what's called a cease-and-desist law. The KidZtime case prompted Colorado lawmakers to introduce a bill revising state securities law.

The Children's Cable Network concept-later renamed KidZtime-was first floated by telemarketers in 1995.

Previous legal actions, including a suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Federal Trade Commission, named longtime cable executive Michael Marcovsky as the architect of the venture designed to locally distribute wholesome, non-violent programming for children.

KidZtime purported to hold the rights to children's programming that featured marquee performers such as Shari Lewis and Bill Cosby, according to marketing materials provided to investors.

According to the marketing pitch used by both KidZtime and Children's Cable Network affiliates, media markets would be divided into 50 units and sold to investors for $10,000 each.

Of the $500,000 collected per market, plaintiffs allege, the CCN or KidZtime corporation retained all but $75,000. That amount was to be paid to a local management company.

The ventures were intended to put kid-friendly programming on local access channels and sell advertising time-the intended means for earning profits. But some investors said their markets never received tapes, and others said they were sent tapes of poor quality.

In lawsuits, investors alleged that an ad-sales mechanism was never put in place. Investors also claimed the funds collected were used only to attract more investors.

The latest indictments are against the KidZtime Colorado corporation, which had offices in Denver, Lakewood and Columbus, Ohio. Named in the suit are officers of Capital Funding and Financial Group, KidZtime TV Inc., KidZtime TV Management Group and the owners and managers of several independent sales offices.

Capital Funding and Financial Group split from the founding Children's Cable Network in April 1996, according to press reports. The two entities sued each other over business differences.

The Colorado indictment includes charges of securities fraud, theft, racketeering and computer crime. All 84 counts are class 2 to class 6 felonies under state law.

The investigation was jointly conducted by the Colorado Attorney General's Office, the state Securities Commissioner's Office and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The attorney general's office will try the case.

FTC SETTLED EARLIER

Other states ordered KidZtime to refund investors' money, said SEC Colorado office spokesman John Smith, but he didn't know how much actually made it back into investors' hands.

The Marcovsky-linked Children's Cable Network corporation was targeted by "Operation Risky Business," a Federal Trade Commission anti-investment fraud initiative, in 1998. The FTC filed the California lawsuit, shutting down what was left of that incorporated unit.

The FTC claimed the CCN unit had raised $16.5 million. In the months prior to that suit, CCN executives allegedly notified investors that revenues had dwindled to about $650,000.

Executives added that they intended to invest that remaining money in a later Marcovsky venture, My Pet TV, according to the FTC. The latter concept was peddled at the 1997 cable trade shows.

The FTC obtained a restraining order in that action. The court froze the assets of CCN and appointed a receiver.

Federal Trade Commission spokesman Mitch Katz said his agency reached a stipulated agreement Marcovsky in May 1999. Marcovsky and another CCN executive were personally ordered to hand over a total of $304,000 to the federal agency.

Marcovsky also agreed to a $200,000 performance bond requirement. Should the former cable executive attempt to begin any business "generally related" to CCN or My Pet TV, he will be subject to "significant" civil penalties and loss of the bond amount.

posted June 30, 2004 10:59            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pharmdman:
We do now and it isn't good.... here's the link:

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA63810&display=Top

Article starts here:
************************
Fourteen Indicted in Kids' TV Scheme

By LINDA HAUGSTED -- Multichannel News, 2/26/2001

A Colorado grand jury has indicted 14 individuals for securities fraud and other alleged crimes related to the promotion of children's programming network KidZtime to small-scale investors.

According to indictments unsealed last week by Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, the defendants and their Colorado corporation, Capital Funding and Financial Group, participated in an illegal investment "scheme" between 1995 and 1999.

Network affiliates raked in an estimated $47 million from investors in the United States, Canada, Holland, Portugal, Germany, Spain, the U.S. Virgin Islands and South Korea, according to the attorney general's office.

This is only the latest suit against the venture or its affiliates. To date, 21 states have filed suits related to the investment venture, known as either KidZtime or the Children's Cable Network, according to Colorado officials. Class-action lawsuits were also filed, including complaints in California and Colorado.

The Colorado case may also result in a change in that state's laws. Legislators are angry that it took Colorado a longer amount of time to shut the venture down than other jurisdictions.

Colorado officials began investigating KidZtime in 1996, but were unable to seek prosecutions because the state does not have what's called a cease-and-desist law. The KidZtime case prompted Colorado lawmakers to introduce a bill revising state securities law.

The Children's Cable Network concept-later renamed KidZtime-was first floated by telemarketers in 1995.

Previous legal actions, including a suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Federal Trade Commission, named longtime cable executive Michael Marcovsky as the architect of the venture designed to locally distribute wholesome, non-violent programming for children.

KidZtime purported to hold the rights to children's programming that featured marquee performers such as Shari Lewis and Bill Cosby, according to marketing materials provided to investors.

According to the marketing pitch used by both KidZtime and Children's Cable Network affiliates, media markets would be divided into 50 units and sold to investors for $10,000 each.

Of the $500,000 collected per market, plaintiffs allege, the CCN or KidZtime corporation retained all but $75,000. That amount was to be paid to a local management company.

The ventures were intended to put kid-friendly programming on local access channels and sell advertising time-the intended means for earning profits. But some investors said their markets never received tapes, and others said they were sent tapes of poor quality.

In lawsuits, investors alleged that an ad-sales mechanism was never put in place. Investors also claimed the funds collected were used only to attract more investors.

The latest indictments are against the KidZtime Colorado corporation, which had offices in Denver, Lakewood and Columbus, Ohio. Named in the suit are officers of Capital Funding and Financial Group, KidZtime TV Inc., KidZtime TV Management Group and the owners and managers of several independent sales offices.

Capital Funding and Financial Group split from the founding Children's Cable Network in April 1996, according to press reports. The two entities sued each other over business differences.

The Colorado indictment includes charges of securities fraud, theft, racketeering and computer crime. All 84 counts are class 2 to class 6 felonies under state law.

The investigation was jointly conducted by the Colorado Attorney General's Office, the state Securities Commissioner's Office and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The attorney general's office will try the case.

FTC SETTLED EARLIER

Other states ordered KidZtime to refund investors' money, said SEC Colorado office spokesman John Smith, but he didn't know how much actually made it back into investors' hands.

The Marcovsky-linked Children's Cable Network corporation was targeted by "Operation Risky Business," a Federal Trade Commission anti-investment fraud initiative, in 1998. The FTC filed the California lawsuit, shutting down what was left of that incorporated unit.

The FTC claimed the CCN unit had raised $16.5 million. In the months prior to that suit, CCN executives allegedly notified investors that revenues had dwindled to about $650,000.

Executives added that they intended to invest that remaining money in a later Marcovsky venture, My Pet TV, according to the FTC. The latter concept was peddled at the 1997 cable trade shows.

The FTC obtained a restraining order in that action. The court froze the assets of CCN and appointed a receiver.

Federal Trade Commission spokesman Mitch Katz said his agency reached a stipulated agreement Marcovsky in May 1999. Marcovsky and another CCN executive were personally ordered to hand over a total of $304,000 to the federal agency.

Marcovsky also agreed to a $200,000 performance bond requirement. Should the former cable executive attempt to begin any business "generally related" to CCN or My Pet TV, he will be subject to "significant" civil penalties and loss of the bond amount.

The corporation was ordered to refund $600,000, an order that was suspended by the court "because of the venture's financial situation," Katz said.

---

It sounds like this guy they hired is in some kind of trouble. Does that mean QBID is going down the same road. I think not. If what you are saying they will be forced to deal with the man's issues. Until I hear something about this straight from Deveny or QBID it is all merely speculation. Again what does his past have to do with drawing up agreements with the carrier's. If the carriers have problems with negotiating with this guy he will be out in a flash. Let's wait and see guys and gals. Fun isn't this. This is better than a soap opera.

Bob

posted June 30, 2004 11:07            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorforit72545:
It sounds like this guy they hired is in some kind of trouble. Does that mean QBID is going down the same road. I think not. If what you are saying they will be forced to deal with the man's issues. Until I hear something about this straight from Deveny or QBID it is all merely speculation. Again what does his past have to do with drawing up agreements with the carrier's. If the carriers have problems with negotiating with this guy he will be out in a flash. Let's wait and see guys and gals. Fun isn't this. This is better than a soap opera.

Bob

---

I agree with you, except for the speculation thing. This isn't speculation, it's a fact that he was indicted. It's certainly something that's been in play for the last two days and probably a few more to come.

It seems as though he's kept his nose clean since then, and he seems to have the credentials and the contacts to do the job. However, this is bound to have a negative effect... at least until some positive, detail-laden PRs are released. And I mean filled with carriers, advertisers, and a hard-launch date.

posted June 30, 2004 11:10            

If so, congratulations for small quick profit. Huge bucks to come soon!!!

posted June 30, 2004 11:11            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bialystock:
As someone said, it doesn't appear that the new consultant has the keys to the kingdom. As a consultant he shouldn't have access to cashflow. He should only have access to Frank's ear. For that, I want a guy whose gotten his hands dirty in the industry. Whether he's a crook or not I have not seen those court decisions, but apparently he's still walking around free. I can understand why that's not good enough for some, but for me it'll do for now. Poor honest people are a dime a dozen. Rich rats abound. I want $ advice from a rich rat. However,
Voluntary Disclaimer: I'm originally from New Jersey, lol!

---

posted June 30, 2004 11:12            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allstocks:
Stocks and the companies they represent please...

---

posted June 30, 2004 11:14            

quote:

---

Originally posted by futuresobjective:
is that why you smell so bad I could smell it over my computer?
J/K

---

what a rotten thing to say. You oughta be ashamed of yourself. I have middle school kids who show more respect for other people than what you have just shown. I think you owe him an apology.

Bob

posted June 30, 2004 11:18            

quote:

---

Originally posted by $$$qbid$$$:
IF IT WASN'T FOR QTELEVISION ALLSTOCKS.COM WOULDN'T BE WHERE ITS AT AND I THINK THE NEW ADVERTISER SHOULD ALSO BE ALLSTOCKS FOR QTV ISN;T THIS GREAT THANKS BOB FREY YOU KEPT THIS AS NORMAL AS YOU COULD. I THINK BOB FREY NEEDS A ROUND OF APPLAUSE ,THANKS FOR EVERYTHING BOB YOUR GREAT

---

posted June 30, 2004 11:19            

sounds like a sound marketing tactic to me.

I want Frank to lie to us more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonv:
Probably the best thing that they could do is when/if a carrier is to be announced thru a press article, they should give the new guy the credit for closing it. This way, he gets credibility and QBID gets the validation they need.

---

posted June 30, 2004 11:21            

THE MAN HAD ISSUES IN 1996-1999. BY READING THIS INFORMATION--I AM UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS ISSUE IS OVER. HE PAID HIS DEBTS. HE IS CLEARED. NO PENDING COURT ISSUES.

WE HAVE TO MOVE ON PAST THIS. OR SELL. AM I READING THIS CORRECTLY. PLEASE COMMENT.

THANKS

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA63810&display=Top

Article starts here:
************************
Fourteen Indicted in Kids' TV Scheme

By LINDA HAUGSTED -- Multichannel News, 2/26/2001

A Colorado grand jury has indicted 14 individuals for securities fraud and other alleged crimes related to the promotion of children's programming network KidZtime to small-scale investors.

According to indictments unsealed last week by Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, the defendants and their Colorado corporation, Capital Funding and Financial Group, participated in an illegal investment "scheme" between 1995 and 1999.

Network affiliates raked in an estimated $47 million from investors in the United States, Canada, Holland, Portugal, Germany, Spain, the U.S. Virgin Islands and South Korea, according to the attorney general's office.

This is only the latest suit against the venture or its affiliates. To date, 21 states have filed suits related to the investment venture, known as either KidZtime or the Children's Cable Network, according to Colorado officials. Class-action lawsuits were also filed, including complaints in California and Colorado.

The Colorado case may also result in a change in that state's laws. Legislators are angry that it took Colorado a longer amount of time to shut the venture down than other jurisdictions.

Colorado officials began investigating KidZtime in 1996, but were unable to seek prosecutions because the state does not have what's called a cease-and-desist law. The KidZtime case prompted Colorado lawmakers to introduce a bill revising state securities law.

The Children's Cable Network concept-later renamed KidZtime-was first floated by telemarketers in 1995.

Previous legal actions, including a suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Federal Trade Commission, named longtime cable executive Michael Marcovsky as the architect of the venture designed to locally distribute wholesome, non-violent programming for children.

KidZtime purported to hold the rights to children's programming that featured marquee performers such as Shari Lewis and Bill Cosby, according to marketing materials provided to investors.

According to the marketing pitch used by both KidZtime and Children's Cable Network affiliates, media markets would be divided into 50 units and sold to investors for $10,000 each.

Of the $500,000 collected per market, plaintiffs allege, the CCN or KidZtime corporation retained all but $75,000. That amount was to be paid to a local management company.

The ventures were intended to put kid-friendly programming on local access channels and sell advertising time-the intended means for earning profits. But some investors said their markets never received tapes, and others said they were sent tapes of poor quality.

In lawsuits, investors alleged that an ad-sales mechanism was never put in place. Investors also claimed the funds collected were used only to attract more investors.

The latest indictments are against the KidZtime Colorado corporation, which had offices in Denver, Lakewood and Columbus, Ohio. Named in the suit are officers of Capital Funding and Financial Group, KidZtime TV Inc., KidZtime TV Management Group and the owners and managers of several independent sales offices.

Capital Funding and Financial Group split from the founding Children's Cable Network in April 1996, according to press reports. The two entities sued each other over business differences.

The Colorado indictment includes charges of securities fraud, theft, racketeering and computer crime. All 84 counts are class 2 to class 6 felonies under state law.

The investigation was jointly conducted by the Colorado Attorney General's Office, the state Securities Commissioner's Office and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The attorney general's office will try the case.

FTC SETTLED EARLIER

Other states ordered KidZtime to refund investors' money, said SEC Colorado office spokesman John Smith, but he didn't know how much actually made it back into investors' hands.

The Marcovsky-linked Children's Cable Network corporation was targeted by "Operation Risky Business," a Federal Trade Commission anti-investment fraud initiative, in 1998. The FTC filed the California lawsuit, shutting down what was left of that incorporated unit.

The FTC claimed the CCN unit had raised $16.5 million. In the months prior to that suit, CCN executives allegedly notified investors that revenues had dwindled to about $650,000.

Executives added that they intended to invest that remaining money in a later Marcovsky venture, My Pet TV, according to the FTC. The latter concept was peddled at the 1997 cable trade shows.

The FTC obtained a restraining order in that action. The court froze the assets of CCN and appointed a receiver.

Federal Trade Commission spokesman Mitch Katz said his agency reached a stipulated agreement Marcovsky in May 1999. Marcovsky and another CCN executive were personally ordered to hand over a total of $304,000 to the federal agency.

Marcovsky also agreed to a $200,000 performance bond requirement. Should the former cable executive attempt to begin any business "generally related" to CCN or My Pet TV, he will be subject to "significant" civil penalties and loss of the bond amount.

The corporation was ordered to refund $600,000, an order that was suspended by the court "because of the venture's financial situation," Katz said.

posted June 30, 2004 11:23            

I have finally joined the 1Million Share Holder group here! Plus I can pay some bills this month!

posted June 30, 2004 11:25            

he has a shady past and this is only what he has gotten caught for. how much has he gotten away with and is still getting away with.

if he was a accused for something like child molestation, would you feel comfortable with him moving in next door to your day care?

not bashing,, just trying to keep it real.

quote:

---

Originally posted by realityinc21:
IMHO

THE MAN HAD ISSUES IN 1996-1999. BY READING THIS INFORMATION--I AM UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS ISSUE IS OVER. HE PAID HIS DEBTS. HE IS CLEARED. NO PENDING COURT ISSUES.

WE HAVE TO MOVE ON PAST THIS. OR SELL. AM I READING THIS CORRECTLY. PLEASE COMMENT.

THANKS

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA63810&display=Top

Article starts here:
************************
Fourteen Indicted in Kids' TV Scheme

By LINDA HAUGSTED -- Multichannel News, 2/26/2001

A Colorado grand jury has indicted 14 individuals for securities fraud and other alleged crimes related to the promotion of children's programming network KidZtime to small-scale investors.

According to indictments unsealed last week by Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, the defendants and their Colorado corporation, Capital Funding and Financial Group, participated in an illegal investment "scheme" between 1995 and 1999.

Network affiliates raked in an estimated $47 million from investors in the United States, Canada, Holland, Portugal, Germany, Spain, the U.S. Virgin Islands and South Korea, according to the attorney general's office.

This is only the latest suit against the venture or its affiliates. To date, 21 states have filed suits related to the investment venture, known as either KidZtime or the Children's Cable Network, according to Colorado officials. Class-action lawsuits were also filed, including complaints in California and Colorado.

The Colorado case may also result in a change in that state's laws. Legislators are angry that it took Colorado a longer amount of time to shut the venture down than other jurisdictions.

Colorado officials began investigating KidZtime in 1996, but were unable to seek prosecutions because the state does not have what's called a cease-and-desist law. The KidZtime case prompted Colorado lawmakers to introduce a bill revising state securities law.

The Children's Cable Network concept-later renamed KidZtime-was first floated by telemarketers in 1995.

Previous legal actions, including a suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Federal Trade Commission, named longtime cable executive Michael Marcovsky as the architect of the venture designed to locally distribute wholesome, non-violent programming for children.

KidZtime purported to hold the rights to children's programming that featured marquee performers such as Shari Lewis and Bill Cosby, according to marketing materials provided to investors.

According to the marketing pitch used by both KidZtime and Children's Cable Network affiliates, media markets would be divided into 50 units and sold to investors for $10,000 each.

Of the $500,000 collected per market, plaintiffs allege, the CCN or KidZtime corporation retained all but $75,000. That amount was to be paid to a local management company.

The ventures were intended to put kid-friendly programming on local access channels and sell advertising time-the intended means for earning profits. But some investors said their markets never received tapes, and others said they were sent tapes of poor quality.

In lawsuits, investors alleged that an ad-sales mechanism was never put in place. Investors also claimed the funds collected were used only to attract more investors.

The latest indictments are against the KidZtime Colorado corporation, which had offices in Denver, Lakewood and Columbus, Ohio. Named in the suit are officers of Capital Funding and Financial Group, KidZtime TV Inc., KidZtime TV Management Group and the owners and managers of several independent sales offices.

Capital Funding and Financial Group split from the founding Children's Cable Network in April 1996, according to press reports. The two entities sued each other over business differences.

The Colorado indictment includes charges of securities fraud, theft, racketeering and computer crime. All 84 counts are class 2 to class 6 felonies under state law.

The investigation was jointly conducted by the Colorado Attorney General's Office, the state Securities Commissioner's Office and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The attorney general's office will try the case.

FTC SETTLED EARLIER

Other states ordered KidZtime to refund investors' money, said SEC Colorado office spokesman John Smith, but he didn't know how much actually made it back into investors' hands.

The Marcovsky-linked Children's Cable Network corporation was targeted by "Operation Risky Business," a Federal Trade Commission anti-investment fraud initiative, in 1998. The FTC filed the California lawsuit, shutting down what was left of that incorporated unit.

The FTC claimed the CCN unit had raised $16.5 million. In the months prior to that suit, CCN executives allegedly notified investors that revenues had dwindled to about $650,000.

Executives added that they intended to invest that remaining money in a later Marcovsky venture, My Pet TV, according to the FTC. The latter concept was peddled at the 1997 cable trade shows.

The FTC obtained a restraining order in that action. The court froze the assets of CCN and appointed a receiver.

Federal Trade Commission spokesman Mitch Katz said his agency reached a stipulated agreement Marcovsky in May 1999. Marcovsky and another CCN executive were personally ordered to hand over a total of $304,000 to the federal agency.

Marcovsky also agreed to a $200,000 performance bond requirement. Should the former cable executive attempt to begin any business "generally related" to CCN or My Pet TV, he will be subject to "significant" civil penalties and loss of the bond amount.

The corporation was ordered to refund $600,000, an order that was suspended by the court "because of the venture's financial situation," Katz said.

---

posted June 30, 2004 11:25            

quote:

---

Originally posted by penny-trader:
So lets get this straight. they should lie to get the trust of the shareholder back?

sounds like a sound marketing tactic to me.

I want Frank to lie to us more.

---

posted June 30, 2004 11:26            

Pharm, what a morning, see you said yesterday was a hoot?!?!? WHOA!!!

Lol...

I would suspect we have Direct TV since they are a client of Deveney...

posted June 30, 2004 11:26            

[QUOTE]Originally posted by futuresobjective:
[B] wow, that is a very ignorant statement.

posted June 30, 2004 11:29            

quote:

---

Originally posted by $$$qbid$$$:
IF IT WASN'T FOR QTELEVISION ALLSTOCKS.COM WOULDN'T BE WHERE ITS AT AND I THINK THE NEW ADVERTISER SHOULD ALSO BE ALLSTOCKS FOR QTV ISN;T THIS GREAT THANKS BOB FREY YOU KEPT THIS AS NORMAL AS YOU COULD. I THINK BOB FREY NEEDS A ROUND OF APPLAUSE ,THANKS FOR EVERYTHING BOB YOUR GREAT

---

YOU ARE RIGHT--THANKS BOB--YOU GIVE US SOME SLACK--BUT YOU KNOW WHEN TO GET US BACK ON TRACK. THANKS TO BOB.

WELL THIS IS MY OPINION: THE ISSUE IS OVER--1996 TO 1999 WERE NOT GOOD. I KNOW THAT HIS PAST WILL FOLLOW HIM. WE WILL HAVE TO GET OVER IT OR SELL. HIS CREDENTIALS ARE EXCEPTIONAL. THERE IS NO PENDING COURT ISSUES AT THIS TIME. THAT IS WHAT I AM UNDERSTANDING. OTHER OPINIONS?? PLEASE WELCOME ALL OPINIONS...HE HAD PAID HIS FINES AND IS CLEARED. YES OR NO?

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA63810&display=Top

Article starts here:
************************
Fourteen Indicted in Kids' TV Scheme

By LINDA HAUGSTED -- Multichannel News, 2/26/2001

A Colorado grand jury has indicted 14 individuals for securities fraud and other alleged crimes related to the promotion of children's programming network KidZtime to small-scale investors.

According to indictments unsealed last week by Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, the defendants and their Colorado corporation, Capital Funding and Financial Group, participated in an illegal investment "scheme" between 1995 and 1999.

Network affiliates raked in an estimated $47 million from investors in the United States, Canada, Holland, Portugal, Germany, Spain, the U.S. Virgin Islands and South Korea, according to the attorney general's office.

This is only the latest suit against the venture or its affiliates. To date, 21 states have filed suits related to the investment venture, known as either KidZtime or the Children's Cable Network, according to Colorado officials. Class-action lawsuits were also filed, including complaints in California and Colorado.

The Colorado case may also result in a change in that state's laws. Legislators are angry that it took Colorado a longer amount of time to shut the venture down than other jurisdictions.

Colorado officials began investigating KidZtime in 1996, but were unable to seek prosecutions because the state does not have what's called a cease-and-desist law. The KidZtime case prompted Colorado lawmakers to introduce a bill revising state securities law.

The Children's Cable Network concept-later renamed KidZtime-was first floated by telemarketers in 1995.

Previous legal actions, including a suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Federal Trade Commission, named longtime cable executive Michael Marcovsky as the architect of the venture designed to locally distribute wholesome, non-violent programming for children.

KidZtime purported to hold the rights to children's programming that featured marquee performers such as Shari Lewis and Bill Cosby, according to marketing materials provided to investors.

According to the marketing pitch used by both KidZtime and Children's Cable Network affiliates, media markets would be divided into 50 units and sold to investors for $10,000 each.

Of the $500,000 collected per market, plaintiffs allege, the CCN or KidZtime corporation retained all but $75,000. That amount was to be paid to a local management company.

The ventures were intended to put kid-friendly programming on local access channels and sell advertising time-the intended means for earning profits. But some investors said their markets never received tapes, and others said they were sent tapes of poor quality.

In lawsuits, investors alleged that an ad-sales mechanism was never put in place. Investors also claimed the funds collected were used only to attract more investors.

The latest indictments are against the KidZtime Colorado corporation, which had offices in Denver, Lakewood and Columbus, Ohio. Named in the suit are officers of Capital Funding and Financial Group, KidZtime TV Inc., KidZtime TV Management Group and the owners and managers of several independent sales offices.

Capital Funding and Financial Group split from the founding Children's Cable Network in April 1996, according to press reports. The two entities sued each other over business differences.

The Colorado indictment includes charges of securities fraud, theft, racketeering and computer crime. All 84 counts are class 2 to class 6 felonies under state law.

The investigation was jointly conducted by the Colorado Attorney General's Office, the state Securities Commissioner's Office and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The attorney general's office will try the case.

FTC SETTLED EARLIER

Other states ordered KidZtime to refund investors' money, said SEC Colorado office spokesman John Smith, but he didn't know how much actually made it back into investors' hands.

The Marcovsky-linked Children's Cable Network corporation was targeted by "Operation Risky Business," a Federal Trade Commission anti-investment fraud initiative, in 1998. The FTC filed the California lawsuit, shutting down what was left of that incorporated unit.

The FTC claimed the CCN unit had raised $16.5 million. In the months prior to that suit, CCN executives allegedly notified investors that revenues had dwindled to about $650,000.

Executives added that they intended to invest that remaining money in a later Marcovsky venture, My Pet TV, according to the FTC. The latter concept was peddled at the 1997 cable trade shows.

The FTC obtained a restraining order in that action. The court froze the assets of CCN and appointed a receiver.

Federal Trade Commission spokesman Mitch Katz said his agency reached a stipulated agreement Marcovsky in May 1999. Marcovsky and another CCN executive were personally ordered to hand over a total of $304,000 to the federal agency.

Marcovsky also agreed to a $200,000 performance bond requirement. Should the former cable executive attempt to begin any business "generally related" to CCN or My Pet TV, he will be subject to "significant" civil penalties and loss of the bond amount.

The corporation was ordered to refund $600,000, an order that was suspended by the court "because of the venture's financial situation," Katz said.

posted June 30, 2004 11:31            

quote:

---

Originally posted by penny-trader:
yes maybe so but there is areason that these things stay on your criminal record for 7 years,

he has a shady past and this is only what he has gotten caught for. how much has he gotten away with and is still getting away with.

if he was a accused for something like child molestation, would you feel comfortable with him moving in next door to your day care?

not bashing,, just trying to keep it real.

---

Another unforgiving soul. He has nothing to do with whether qbid making it or not making it. The public at large is supporing a Gay, Lesbian Bisexual tv station. We got over the biggest hurdle. Now we question a man's integrity and hold him up under the spot light without a smidgent of evidence that he is bad for this company. Come and get into the 21st century and quit judging. Those of You who have such high standards should be aware of this: someone said once long ago, he who is without fault cast the first stone.

I take it you have thrown many stones.

Bob

posted June 30, 2004 11:34            

quote:

---

Originally posted by futuresobjective:
is that why you smell so bad I could smell it over my computer?
J/K

---

posted June 30, 2004 11:37            

quote:

---

Originally posted by OilMan:
Funny how this board thrives on all negative issues and no one has addressed the adds on cable in seattle on comcast. Other areas have been mentioned as well but no one follows up on these. I did and the ones in seattle are for real. Pick up the phone and call around when you see post on ads.

---

posted June 30, 2004 11:40            

quote:

---

Originally posted by OilMan:
Funny how this board thrives on all negative issues and no one has addressed the adds on cable in seattle on comcast. Other areas have been mentioned as well but no one follows up on these. I did and the ones in seattle are for real. Pick up the phone and call around when you see post on ads.

---

posted June 30, 2004 11:40            

posted June 15, 2004 18:34
I also understand your points. They are valid. In fact that is how I looked at it until I took a few steps back and realized how wrong I was (just my opinion, not trying to imply that I am right or you are wrong, just stating that I feel for myself I am on the right track)
I see how you can think, as I did, that they are under legal contract. In fact one of the past two times (this is the third attempt) they tried to launch they blew a deal they allegedly had with a carrier. I say allegedy because if I remember it correctly, that company denied that it ever had a deal. they were in talks.

In reference to your reference to the OS count (lol) They are not under the control of a pr firm. The PR firm in under control of them. I have only seen two pr's with devany's name on it? maybe I missed one, however these pr's are coming from the q.

This company might want to become fully reporting but I see no proof to them even suggesting that. please correct me if I am wrong, I would like to know. If they do want to move off of the pinks, one would think they would begin by lettng their investors in on things, such as the os count.

Keep in mind that the announced buy back really means nothing for a pink until after it is completed. There is no regulation for thigns like that. They can say anything they want (as far as I know) regarding a buyback and they have no reason to follow through with it. they can say it every day and it does not mean a thing until after it has happened.

Frank did announce no R/S.

They have interest from institutional companies<--- nobody I know... nobody even worth mentioning IMO

1. The Q-Television stock has risen over 12,000% since Feb. 2004.<-- so have many other companies. that does not mean much anymore... it only meant something when you were at the bottom... now I am afraid there is all that way back down.. where before at 0.0001 the only way to lose money was through a r/s or if they folded.

2. The Network has annouced a limited stock buy back.<- again they can announce this but it means nothing until after it is completed. I do recall reading or hearing somewhere that it will not start until oct. 4 months or more away. when is their launch? a couple of weeks?

3. The Q-Television board has voted on NO REVERSE SPLIT.

4. The company has teamed with Barbara LaMonte, a notible figure in the Broadcasting field. She speaks over six languages.<--- Between my and my sister we speak 9 languages. your point? Last I checked you had to pay for her services? Also checked out that companies website... I am sad to say my screen almost cracked it was so ugly, and poorly designed.

5. The Q-Television Network annouced that NTI, a satellite UPLINK/DOWNLINK signal distribution company will handle the technical aspects of transmitting the Q-Television signal upto the Telestar satellite, in which it will be downlinked to all available satellite and cable provieds in NORTH AMERICA, including CANADA, MEXICO and part of the Carribiean (sp?).<-- again I think you have to pay for those services. and until I see this thing airing how do I know they are not there to make sure the pulg doesn't fall out?

6. The Q-Television network will charge a preium to access its broadcast, limiting the viewability to those who want it. Therefore it will not be 'shoved' into heterosexual peoples homes. The cable company will also collect part of the subsciption rate. Each cable company will recivie funds for every customer who watches. Viacomm's LOGO Network will be carried on basic packages. This is already causing controversy.<-- I am over that, it seems to me that viacom has take a lot of heat over their network chanel logo, and still they are able to offer true advertisers. We are going to attempt to charge people, and a few days before we launch, we have no clue what any of our shows will be, not clue what kind of moves( aside form the three on their website), and nothing in place that should be in place well before you launch a network, From all that I have read at least. I am starting to think they want to launch this and then try to get advertisers and carriers. IMO they are way to behind on bringing this thing *online*.

7. The Q-Television Network has hired a leading Public Relations firm to handle news releases and press issues. This company has had Direct TV as a client and has access to noteable, prominent individuals and companies.<-- they ahve hired a pr firm that they have used (from what I saw) twice. no big deal there. I cant see any progress made for the q by this firm.

8. Q-Television has an updated website.<-- nothing to write home about. take a look at logo's its up and its 100% better than q's. P.S., who did they get to build it? its a badly designed site, by amatuers in my opinion.

9. On May first thru the fourth, the network attended the an industry held convention where the Q-Television network exposed itself to many cable and industry leaders.<-- yes they did, I was excited about this. However I have seen no progress because of this. have you? its just not there.

10. The Q-Television Network launched a Test Signal on May 15th, which was broadcast, in clear, unscambled signals, to C-Band Satellite dish owners as well as to all cable/satellite providers. In addition, the signal was carried over two broadcast providers. <-- that signal was anything buy clear from what I remember. Also they had to pay for this signal to go out. on top of that they never supplied investors with information on # of actual viewers, which once again I am afraid I heard them mention they would.

A. The first provider was Comcast Cable in the Washington State/Seattle area.
B. The second provider was Cox Cable in New Orleans, which is home to a rathe rlarge Gay market.<--- right they payed for this, much like ron popeil(sp?) pays to advertise his pasta maker.

The five hour broadcast included a selection of content including an orginal documentary highlighting the Nationwide Gay Marriage events.<-- yes it did. turn on the news, until last week gay marriages where all over the place. I also remember reading somewhere that the movie was also airing on another companies channel... but I might be wrong.

The Test Signal was a complete success.<-- the test signal was a test signal, how can you say it was a success when you have nothing to tell you it was? no feedback from viewers, no anything.

Durring this time, news clips and spots have began to appear in numerous news sources. <---- I have seen a few posts, mostly blots of info, that nobody will see but the investor looking for it. not impressed yet.

11. On June 1st, The Q-Television began its Industry Soft Launch which will allow Cable providers, as well as Satellite providers, access to a block of programming, on going throughout the whole month of June.<--- yest they did, I still have no idea how that is going. do you? I mean do your really?

12. Frank Olsen has annouced he has closed five meetings in New York, with ten others in open discussion. <--- they have not been turned down, closing a meeting does not mean to me that we have contrcacts... until I see that we have them I would not assume so.

Additionally, the company has open an office in New York City which will include secretaries to handle the operations for the East Coast area. They havee also hired a person who will help them with an advertising campaign. <-- ny office. I will check it out when they find the time to open it. its not open yet. Also, I thought devany is heling them with their advertising and carriers? I see no proof of anything yet. you cant if your eyes are open.

13. The Q-Television Network plans to launch an advertising Campaign at the end of June, which will be a nationwide, multi-city event.<-- still to be seen, why are they waiting until days before they launch? A company as large as viacom is doing it a year ahead of time, and they dont have to. the q, I would think does.

14. The Q-Television Network has access to film crews at any time, in major US cities. These film crews will give the network footage for their news segements, comentaries, documentaries as well as for concerts, events, parties, and festiviles and parades.<--- give me a day and a couple of grand, I will have access as well. it was news when it came out, but not any longer.

15. The company plans to launch the network to the consumer in July, which is about two weeks away.<---july is two weeks away or so, why do we have no information, no advertisers (aside from gotchocolates and mikkee), why do we have no information about anything that at least I require to consider this a sound investment? when it comes down to it, we really have no information, that provides any idea of how well, poorly they are doing.

Please don't consider my post a bach, even though it may sound like one. These are my concerns and my thoughts towards JBCak47's post.
JBCak47 in no way am I trying to make you change your mind, I am just putting out what I see as relavant information regarding your reply to my post. your reply in itself is very much apreciated. Best of luck to you.

posted June 30, 2004 11:40            

Looks like another bad day for some...

One... might think that there is more to life than having to be heard or having to be right.

Why don't we just get over it, be mature adults and be constructive here.

We all want the same thing and that is... QBID to be a success; sooooooooo lets focus on the positive aspects of this company. We need to support it as if it were our own.

posted June 30, 2004 11:45            

People like to know both sides of a company when they invest. you need to know how much bad stuff or negative stuff there is in a company to be able to acurately wiegh the risk.

When i first started watching this thread it sounded like there was nothing wrong or negative about this company and that it is a 100% guarantee that it will launch.

this is a penny stock and the truth of the matter is that the odds are stacked against it. People are trying to get a true picture of the company that they are going to throw money into. you can not expect to surpress teh negatives. doign that will not make them go away and make the company succeed. they very things that are being posted could be the thing that makes this company not go. if you tell people to go away and not bring that info in here, the company will still fold for that reason, just there will be a bunch of peple that had the rose colored classes on and didn't see it coming.

having all the negative and the positive posted together you cna see the whole picture and make a true calculation of the risk verses potential assesment and go in with a true understanding of what can happen.

I see so many people in here that refuse to look at the reality that this thing could fail.

so that is why there is so much talk abou tthe negative stuff. anyone that invests money with out concidering this will soon learn the leason the hard way

quote:

---

Originally posted by OilMan:
Funny how this board thrives on all negative issues and no one has addressed the adds on cable in seattle on comcast. Other areas have been mentioned as well but no one follows up on these. I did and the ones in seattle are for real. Pick up the phone and call around when you see post on ads.

---

posted June 30, 2004 11:48            

quote:

---

Originally posted by realityinc21:
BOB--THANKS--I APOLOGIZE TO YOU AND ALLSTOCKS ALSO.
http://www.qtelevision.com/advertising.html

IN 10 DAYS WE HAVE 4 ADVERTISERS. COULD SOMEONE CONTACT THEM AND SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AND WHY THEY ARE ADVERTISING WITH QBID? PLEASE FIND AND REPOST LETTER ABOUT THE LAST ADVERTISER. I KNOW THAT SOMEONE LOOKED THEM UP AND E-MAIL THEM. GREAT MOVE. BRING IT FORWARD AND LETS SEE WHY THESE PEOPLE FEEL COMFORTABLE IN ADVERTISING AND PAYING MONEY TO THE Q TO PUT OUT THEIR PRODUCT.

THESE ARE ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

---

The Chocolates folks - After hearing the number of cases the owner shipped off to the convention of the Q-coins I had to ask myself why only so little. It was not even going to cover 25% of the expected audience if I remember correctly right now. The business does exist and the owner was nice enough to speak to someone on this board.

The Sauce company - I do not think anyone was able to get an official reply from them. I could be wrong though...some of the posts recently have made my eyes look like some of the emoticons in yahoo messenger.

The Cafeshops store - This is the same store that was "illegal" and was going to be shut down by the company for using its logo/trademark etc without permission. Now they are an official store?!? With all the proceeds going to QTV? I don't like it.

The Amazon Herb company - The guy has been waiting a few weeks for his banner to be put up. A few weeks?!? And once it was up the link was incorrect?! If Deveney really has taken over the website then I must say I would have rather had those devil design people still running it. At least they were working on it all the time and the webmaster would post on IHUB and b1tch back at people complaining about the site. Anyway - the person that is running that site for Amazon Herb --> he is not corporate. He is a reseller of the product. Independent. He came across QTV in his search for stocks if I recall correctly and he thought it would be great investment for a banner ad due to the traffic on the site etc.

All in all .. I personally think the "advertisers" that are listed there are really not doing anything much for the company. Yeah they have paid to be on there (maybe - we do not know the specifics) but I doubt any of them have bought airtime. I want to see the folks listed who have bought airtime. There has to be a few of them that are already advertising in the G&L area. They should not mind having their name splashed up there.

I was hoping for a bit more but maybe I was expecting too much. Like everyone says this has been over 20,000 % from its 0001 level. Granted not everyone here bough in at that level but some of us did...and we still complain. Some just do it because they have to always complain about something others do it because they don’t have anything else to do. There will come a time though and it might be in the very near future where excuses and "just buy more and you will be fine" mode will no longer work. No not like today but more so when the bottom falls out. It really is a shame that the so called day traders are putting that much pressure on the company. Frank himself has made mention of swing/day traders in the past. He also stated that he was buying on the dips. Of course that came from a phone call with him by another message board post. At this point even the staunchest of investors on a few of the boards are crying fowl. The same folks who kept saying buy more buy more. But you never know right? This thing could shoot up to a buck tomorrow and everyone would come in with their Monday morning quarterback technique. Yet when the pps goes down there are only a few posters who keep posting in the good and bad.

For those who feel that you need to own shares to be able to post on a particular thread – go fly a kite. There are many posters who have great TA abilities who do not always have active positions in some of the securities they talk about. I particularly enjoy that. I would like to think they are providing an un-biased look based strictly on the charts etc. There are some companies that people are interested in because of the industry they are in – I have stepped in from time to time because of my own background and knowledge. But if I do not have shares in the company should I not be allowed to post information about the company or where I see them going. I would of course try and put some numbers behind my posts but sometimes that is not always the case. Sometimes all I can give is just my own view based on what I have seen in my time investing and my time in that particular industry. Keep in mind there was a time when a lot of people were not in QBID. Were any of you posting information on the company without holding shares in it? I was. I’ll admit it. I’m glad in the ‘past’ that was allowed and accepted. These days it seems if you do not have anything to add that is nice to the company you get trampled upon. Day traders be damned indeed.

...good luck as always to my friends...

...and for you other folks... good luck as well

posted June 30, 2004 11:53            

quote:

---

Originally posted by penny-trader:
I think the reason for this is that there is little good new coming out of this company and wher ethere is it is pumped to hell.

People like to know both sides of a company when they invest. you need to know how much bad stuff or negative stuff there is in a company to be able to acurately wiegh the risk.

When i first started watching this thread it sounded like there was nothing wrong or negative about this company and that it is a 100% guarantee that it will launch.

this is a penny stock and the truth of the matter is that the odds are stacked against it. People are trying to get a true picture of the company that they are going to throw money into. you can not expect to surpress teh negatives. doign that will not make them go away and make the company succeed. they very things that are being posted could be the thing that makes this company not go. if you tell people to go away and not bring that info in here, the company will still fold for that reason, just there will be a bunch of peple that had the rose colored classes on and didn't see it coming.

having all the negative and the positive posted together you cna see the whole picture and make a true calculation of the risk verses potential assesment and go in with a true understanding of what can happen.

I see so many people in here that refuse to look at the reality that this thing could fail.

so that is why there is so much talk abou tthe negative stuff. anyone that invests money with out concidering this will soon learn the leason the hard way

---

The cable, satellite, and tv industry looks to see if there is money to be made. Do you think those people care about moral issues, what is best for the community at large. You know the answer to that question. What they look at is whether or not there is money to be made with a station aimed at the gay, lesbian, bisexal community. I believe there is money to be made in this area and that is why I invested in this company. I'm betting that it will go through. All other distractions are merely that, just distractions. Believe me the tv industry would love to make this tv station work. I believe it will still make it. Is it a gamble? You bet it is. Jump in and get your feet wet. Keep testing the water before you know it there will be too many people to even let you in.

Bob