posted July 26, 2004 10:01            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bialystock:
Seemed like lots of volume going through at .0004 this morning. But then all of my other boards are dead, so maybe cmkx just "looks" busy...

---

posted July 26, 2004 10:35            

Thank you for contacting us today regarding CMKX.

At this time, we have no reason to believe that the shares showing in your account are a result of a purchase from a naked short sell. However, the company trades as a "Pink Sheet" and is subject to less stringent reporting requirements, so it is impossible for Ameritrade to guarantee that good delivery of the purchased shares will be made.

Recently, the company announced a distribution of shares to qualified shareholders. Again, we have no reason to believe that you will not be entitled to the distributed shares, provided you are holding a position at the market open on the ex-dividend date, or have a settled position on the record date if not quoted ?ex? by the NASD.

Only shares held in a margin account with a debit balance can be loaned (to short sell) or hypothecated (to secure a loan). However, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) has not deemed CMKX Diamonds a marginable stock, so these shares may not be loaned to short sell regardless of the account type.

You have several options available. You may continue to hold your shares at Ameritrade. Shares in your Ameritrade account are held electronically with The Depository Trust Company (DTC) or registered to Ameritrade directly as custodian For Benefit Of (FBO) your account. This is common industry practice known as "Street Name." While you hold your shares at Ameritrade, you may continue to trade them as you normally would.

Or, it may be possible to hold the physical certificates representing your position in the company. You would then be on record directly with the company's transfer agent, and a certificate would be mailed to you. In order to negotiate the shares, you would need to endorse the certificate and mail it to Ameritrade.

Stock certificate requests may be made online only if issued with a title identical to that of the account holder(s). To request a stock certificate online, you would need to log into your account and click on the tab that reads "Account Services". Under "Withdrawals", requesting a stock certificate is the last choice in this list.

A $40 fee is assessed for the physical mailing of the stock certificate(s) as issued by the company in which the shares were purchased. If the request requires registration to a third party (special registration), the fee is $60, and the request can only be made with a Letter of Instruction signed by all account holders.

These fees along with additional service fees can be found on the last page of the Ameritrade Trading Account Handbook.

Please allow 4 to 8 weeks for processing and delivery by mail.

Again, thank you for choosing Ameritrade. Please feel free to respond to this e-mail or contact us at 800-669-3900 with any questions.

If you have further concerns or inquiries, please reply to this message.

Sincerely,

posted July 26, 2004 10:51            

Good luck on beating the ticket!

Bill,

posted July 26, 2004 11:21            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wallace#1:
Winsum,

Great post! Very meaningful.

---

Meaningful, yes. Comforting, no.

posted July 26, 2004 12:09            

I purchased X amount of CMKX shares on the open market, through a legit broker, and I now hold those shares in my account. I have records from my broker that I have purchsed X amount of shares and that I own those shares (street name). If those shares were sold legally or if they were created out of mid air (naked short) does not really concern me, since I have "real" CMKX shares in my account, period. NOBODY can take those shares out of my account except me, when I sell them!!!

In the future, when the PPS has increased to a point where I feel I want to sell part of or all of my shares, I put in a sell order and those shares will be sold on the open market and I my account will be credited with the sold amount. End of story.

The only question in my mind, after reading all of this BS, is will I get the dividend shares since the TA may not have a record of my shares if they were naked shorted. You know what, screw the dividend shares!!! I couldn't care less about a few untradeable UCAD & CIM shares. I am here for CMKX and that's where I will make my money.

posted July 26, 2004 12:30            

Legally if you purchase x company share at x price, and if the cash is transfered, you have an execution number, the shares electronically show up in your account and you get the documents showing your sells/buys, which they are legally required to send you at tax time.

All those seller/buyer agreements, plus existing secuirities laws would make it totally illegal for brokerages NOT to give you a dividend, even if you do hold naked shorts. Understand the potential windfall that would occur due to undermining the value of our exchanges as well as brokerages being hurt from bad publicity would be scandalous.

Any brokerage that does not want to hurt their consumer and their public perception would legally force any MM to comply with the dividend.

There are no ways around that. Each share holder bought in GOOD FAITH that they were buying into CMKX. That is the legality of the law. You purchased something in which you are now entitled, legally to (WHEN they issue the dividend).

I think, in my opinion, that the O/S will be 40 billion with an A/S of 400 Billion but with like 250-400 Billion naked shorts...

They will issue the shares to the 40 Billion O/S. This is what CMKX is LEGALLY obligied to do. That is what THEIR books, as well as any SEC books (when they report) will say. So legally they only have to issue to the 40 Billion O/S.

HOWEVER

Now legally the MM's who sold the naked shorts sold us legal CMKX shares.

Our brokerages did just that, broker the sale and hold the shares in trust.

They WILL turn to the MM's, not the company CMKX to provide any dividends.

The MM's will now have to cover.

Either buy the shares back or buy UCAD for EVERY dividend.

Keep in mind this falls on a number of MM's so it will be distributed among a number of Mm's not just a single enitity.

In the end it will be cheaper to just buy back CMKX from as many people as possible... Not a problem except:

CMKX RACE CAR

The race car will bring in new potential investors. The MM's now have the added responisbility of buying back the naked shorts but issuing shares to these new investors.

If the CMKX Race car wins a race, and it will have 12 chances to do so, there maybe more long term buying pressure, in a small, but forceful way, lowering the 'float' and making more shares 'longterm' shares. At the same time buying pressure will either drive up stock price or at the very least cause MM'S to work even harder, they can buy back naked shorts, but will they issue the new investors, who may have only cash accounts, not margin accounts, real non naked shorted shares?

You see, buying pressure, lower 'float', dividend to force cover, many shares being 'long term', diamonds, minerals, plus mineral rights on 1.4 million acres= HUGE PPS in theory at least.

However that area Canada has already been found to contain diamonds....

posted July 26, 2004 13:08            

Wallace-I was agreeing with all of what Bill posted except that the value of our company would only come from diamonds when mined. I was attempting to say the mineral rights claims we own have a huge value in and of themselves. Those claims are rumored to be available for sale with some of the proceeds to be given to the shareholders as cash dividends. We also have other minerals and other companies per various PR's over the last 18 months.

I wanted to post a link to anyone who wants to read what Melvin had to say on Paltalk. It is mostly a Heartfelt Thank you to all the
CMKX shareholders who cared enough to write and send flowers, prayers or get well wishes. It is about 10 minutes long-so I will supply the link:
http://1millionaire.********s31.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1090860390

posted July 26, 2004 13:13            

I'm sure Urban feels fully justifed in supporting a racing team and calling it advertising. IMO it's no more than an indulgence in his passion for racing at shareholders expense.

Just wanted to put in my 50 shares worth.

posted July 26, 2004 13:18            

SI Clancy`s Judgment Against Basher Upheld

July 26, 2004 12:19:00 (ET)

DENVER, Jul 26, 2004 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Clancy Systems International, Inc. (CLSI, Trade), a leading developer of parking enforcement solutions, was notified on Friday that it's judgment against a basher who had harassed the company for almost three years at various chat room sites, including Raging Bull, was upheld by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The Company intends to pursue the judgment award.

In a case originally filed with the Superior Court of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in September of 2000, the Company sought the identities of John Does 1-10 and filed a claim for damages. This was done as a result of an ongoing barrage of false, defamatory and slanderous remarks about the Company, its officers, its employees and shareholders that were made on Raging Bull and other chat room sites. The persons who perpetrated these falsehoods did so by posting their remarks under alias identities. Once the true identities were disclosed, the individuals were notified to cease and desist their actions. One individual continued his activities which included profanities and death threats. As the postings by this individual did not cease, the Company pursued the case.

The Company was awarded a judgment against the defendant on October 31, 2001. The defendant then began a process of filing appeals through the Massachusetts Court System. The final appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Court was filed in June 2004.

Throughout this lengthy process, the defendant never provided proof that he at any time owned shares of the Company. He never contacted the Company directly to verify information. It appears that this was a recreational activity. There were over 5,000 posts during the period, and on some days the posts were continual for 10 to 12 hours.

While the Company feels the verdict is just, Company officials expressed sadness that they were forced to take this matter to the courts in the first place. "It has been a terrible ordeal for the Company and its shareholders. We have spent a great deal of time on this matter and wasted valuable Company financial resources. While we understand that a forum like Raging Bull offers an opportunity for favorable and unfavorable comments about publicly held companies, this individual violated all terms of service and went beyond the acceptable rules for posting," stated L. Wolfson, a Company spokesperson.

This press release contains projections and other forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These projections and statements reflect the Company's current views with respect to future events and financial performance. No assurance can be given, however, that these events will occur or that these projections will be achieved and actual results could differ materially from those projected as a result of certain factors. A discussion of these factors is included in the Company's periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

SOURCE: Clancy Systems International, Inc.

posted July 26, 2004 13:24            

Fantastic!!!! You must be one smart kid figuring out the cop might not show because of the convention. I have heard they don't always show when it's their day off too.

Did you misunderstand what I was saying to Bill? I responded incorrectly to one of his posts, not to anything you might have posted.

As to value of CMKX, I agree that the value will come from diamonds...but must add "when and IF found".

posted July 26, 2004 13:42            

"I've never met so many caring and loving people"

"All Urban wants is for us to be one big happy RICH family...and believe me, it will come to that."

"I'd like to personally thank each and every one of you. I'd like to give you all a big hug, but I can't, and that hurts. But there are certain people that have meant a lot to me (you all have, but certain people...) Judy, God bless you... Peter and his wife"

(voice really getting emotional now)

"For the emails, flowers, the most beautiful time in the world I've ever spent, Vicki and I, God bless each and every one of you. We HAVE become a family. I'll never forget any of you, regardless of what happens to this stock."

"I'm going to leave you people with something that is near and dear to Vicki and my heart. 12 years ago we lost our son. We're not the only people who've ever lost a loved one....whatever happened, God made happen for a reason. What I'm about to tell you is the honest truth. I want you to sit back, enjoy a cup of coffee, and listen to me.."

"the year is 1991, Vancouver CA. A 9-yr-old boy sitting in a hospital room isolation ward, chemo, radiation is about to kill him. He goes through a bone-marrow transplant (devastating). 14 days after my marrow was given to Jeff, they did a bone marrow biopsy...that's where they take some marrow from his back..."

(pauses to talk to someone)

"My other two sons are back in Sask. because we didn't want to bring them, because of the stress..anyway, the day we did the biopsy, we wanted the results as quick as possible. The Dr. Spent all day in the lab making sure to get the results. That night, 10pm, 1/17, he came to our room at 10pm...I want you people to picture this...beautiful night, snow, all's quite, Jeff's looking out the window...Dr. comes in, big smile on his face.

1st thing he said: the transplant's working. Well, you know what we thought. We all broke up, Jeff started to smile, we talked for a few minutes, the Dr. left.

My wife and I have made a promise to one another, if this transplant worked, we'd get the other boys, and we decided to do that. I was going to fly home and get the boys and bring them back. We chatted, Jeff was getting tired, so we decided to let him sleep. When we did that and we were saying our goodbyes, Jeff looked at the both of us and said, "Dad...when you go home tomorrow, will you do me a favor? Can you thank the people back home for helping me get my life back?" A 9-yr-old boy wanted to say thank you from teh bottom of his heart to folks for giving his life back.

Point: I want to thank all of you, shareholders, everyone who's had anything to do with CMKX, I want to say this...same thing. I want to think each and every one of you...for the kindness, respect, goodness, everyone has shown. I'll never forget, vicki will never forget, as long as she's on this earth (may be 6 months, a year, 10 years, we don't know), she literally broke down and cried in that room, and she doesn't do that often. I just wanted to thank you.

posted July 26, 2004 14:11            

1. I purchased X amount of shares
2. X shares are in my brokerage account
3. NOBODY can take those shares away from me
4. The shares remain in my account until I sell.
5. When I sell, somebody will pay real money for them, and that money will get credited to my account.

posted July 26, 2004 14:48            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Money_Penny:
I ask again:

1. I purchased X amount of shares
2. X shares are in my brokerage account
3. NOBODY can take those shares away from me
4. The shares remain in my account until I sell.
5. When I sell, somebody will pay real money for them, and that money will get credited to my account.

Am I wrong???

---

I think you are pretty much right. I'll admit I don't know but I wonder if the book work doesn't go something like this:

A MM sells shares short (naked). The TA gets notice and adds the shares under your name and deducts the shares under the MM's name, which will now show a negative amount. When the dividend is due the TA sends out the dividend to everyone with a positive balance (i.e., you) and sets up a negative share account for the MM (i.e., he owes the TA shares of the dividend stock just like he does of the original stock). So now the dividend stock is also shorted by the MM.

Again, I have no reason to beleive it happens this way but it seems like a reasonable way to handle it. If this is the case perhpas the MMs don't really have to come up with the shares of the dividend stock or cover the shorts. They just become short in the dividend stock.

If they can create the original stock out of thin air why can't they do the same with the dividend stock?

posted July 26, 2004 15:21            

No offense, but it looks like you need a new book. It just does not work that way. The TA is not involved with normal trades.

A buys stock through broker C
B sells stock through broker D

MMs either sell themselves to C for A or buy themselves from D for B, or, they match the trades of A-C (buy) and B-D (sell).

Under normal circumstances, the TA is not informed of these trades...whether naked or real shares are involved. The only way I can think of the TA being involved is if A requests his certificate through C. Even then, I cannot see where the MM would be involved.

posted July 26, 2004 15:41            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wallace#1:
GatorMan,

No offense, but it looks like you need a new book. It just does not work that way. The TA is not involved with normal trades.

A buys stock through broker C
B sells stock through broker D

MMs either sell themselves to C for A or buy themselves from D for B, or, they match the trades of A-C (buy) and B-D (sell).

Under normal circumstances, the TA is not informed of these trades...whether naked or real shares are involved. The only way I can think of the TA being involved is if A requests his certificate through C. Even then, I cannot see where the MM would be involved.

[This message has been edited by Wallace#1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

---

As I said, my scenario was speculation. But I still think the TA does more than issue certificates. I think they are the ones who keep track of who owns the stock for the record. So when a MM sells you stock they notify the TA tha x shares were sold from their position to yours and the TA makes the book entry. If not, how does any company determine who is the stock holder of record? I doubt they go to each brokerage and MM and ask them. To many chances for missing someone or down right fraud. The TA is, I beleive, the record keeper for the stock.

You are absolutly correct about how the MMs match up the buys and sells. But it's the TA that keeps track of who owns the stock.

Once again, this is how I see it happening and I may be 100% wrong (wow, that would be a first! ) It would be something interesting to research.

posted July 26, 2004 15:54            

From another board

BID ASK

posted July 26, 2004 16:07            

If you hold the physical certificate, yes, the TA has you recorded as the owner of valid shares.

As to distributions of any kind (and here, I reiterate, I am not sure) I suspect that the distribution is sent to the DTC in some kind of lump form and that is distributed to the brokers who record in the shareholders' accounts. Remember, as far as that distribution is concerned, the TA absolutely DOES know how many issued and outstanding shares there are. Say there are 10 shares total issued and outstanding. The TA would then provide the DTC with another 10 shs for a 2x1 split (and here, again, I am not sure how it is done) to distribute to the brokers and then to the shareholders. This is precisely why I say any naked shares sold (such as 5 in my example) would create problems. The TA could not provide the DTC with more shares than legally should exist. Therefore, 5 shs would remain invalid. Problem also comes in the fact that all shares are mixed together during trading, so the valid vs the invalid cannot be sorted out as far as I can determine. I do think some innocents could get hurt. That is why I have been suggesting demanding the physical certificates.
--------------------------------------------
Remember, this dilema will exist only if there is a large quantity of naked shorted shares sold by the MMs. Some posters here insist that is the case. Others, say that it is not the case. I sure as hell do not know!
-------------------------------------

Must go now...a few things to do at home.

posted July 26, 2004 17:00            

1. Shares can be erased from an account
2. Shares in your account can be deemed untradeable

posted July 26, 2004 17:07            

Note function #1.

Transfer Agents
Companies that have publicly traded securities typically use transfer agents to keep track of the individuals and entities that own their stocks and bonds. Most transfer agents are banks or trust companies, but sometimes a company acts as its own transfer agent.

Transfer agents perform three main functions:

1. Issue and cancel certificates to reflect changes in ownership. For example, when a company declares a stock dividend or stock split, the transfer agent issues new shares. Transfer agents keep records of who owns a company’s stocks and bonds and how those stocks and bonds are held—whether by the owner in certificate form, by the company in book-entry form, or by the investor’s brokerage firm in street name. They also keep records of how many shares or bonds each investor owns.

2. Act as an intermediary for the company. A transfer agent may also serve as the company’s paying agent to pay out interest, cash and stock dividends, or other distributions to stock- and bondholders. In addition, transfer agents act as proxy agent (sending our proxy materials), exchange agent (exchanging a company’s stock or bonds in a merger), tender agent (tendering shares in a tender offer), and mailing agent (mailing the company’s quarterly, annual, and other reports).

3. Handle lost, destroyed, or stolen certificates. Transfer agents help shareholders and bondholders when a stock or bond certificate has been lost, destroyed, or stolen. If this has happened to you, read our search key topic, Stock Certificates, Lost, Stolen. Also, if you hold securities in your own name and want to transfer or sell them, you may need to get your signature "guaranteed" before a transfer agent will accept the transaction. For information about transferring your securities, please read "Signature Guarantees: Preventing the Unauthorized Transfer of Securities" in our Fast Answers databank.
In many cases, you can find out which transfer agent a company uses by visiting the investor relations section of the company's website. You also can find general information about transfer agents on the Securities Transfer Association website, a private trade organization. Please note that the STA is not equipped to respond to individual inquiries via the telephone, mail, or e-mail. Shareholders with transfer related inquiries, even if they are general in nature, would be best served by speaking to the transfer agent or issuer for the security in question or their broker-dealer.

posted July 26, 2004 17:19            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Money_Penny:
I must say the bashers are doing a good job. They have completely diverted our attention and they've now got us worried about the shares in our accounts not being legit. They are saying "order certificates if you want to be safe". They know this will not affect us longs (as we have nothing to lose), but any newbie or lurker reading this discussion will definitely think twice about keeping this stock. Think about it!!!

---

Well, I'm trying my best to counter some of that by trying to understand EXACTLY how the system works. For some of us getting the physical certificate is not an option. My shares are in an IRA and I think getting the certificates would amount to a distribution.

For those who offer statements on how things work without stating that they are guessing or speculation I'd suggest a link to your source.

posted July 26, 2004 17:57            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Upside:
River, Money, & Gator,
I dont know, the way I read function # 1 is that the TA keeps the records in three different ways. Let's say the 4 of us all used Ameritrade and we each had 1 million shares, held by Ameritrade on our behalf (street name). I believe the TA's records would show Ameritrade holding 4 million shares in street name but would not have our personal names attached to them.

---

Upside, read the last sentence of function #1 again. Now that's pretty clear to me.

posted July 26, 2004 17:57            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Upside:
River, Money, & Gator,
I dont know, the way I read function # 1 is that the TA keeps the records in three different ways. Let's say the 4 of us all used Ameritrade and we each had 1 million shares, held by Ameritrade on our behalf (street name). I believe the TA's records would show Ameritrade holding 4 million shares in street name but would not have our personal names attached to them.

---

I'd say you are absolutly correct. So when the TA sees that Ameritrade is holding 4 million shares they send the dividends to Ameritrade who then distrinbutes them to the proper accounts.

posted July 26, 2004 17:59            

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By: schmedrick
26 Jul 2004, 02:11 PM EDT
Msg. 51826 of 51863
Jump to msg. #
The Cert Pulling Circus is in Town

I was wondering how long it would take before the old cert pulling circus would roll into town. Well it has finally arrived in full force, and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people think that pulling their certificates is going to do something positive for the the stock price, and yet with so many hundreds of stocks and their shareholders attempting to do this time after time, it has never once accomplished anything.

Actually I stand corrected, it does accomplish one thing, it takes each shareholder completely out of the market and they are no longer able to trade their stock should a run or a tank in the stock price occur. I find it very interesting how this cert pulling phenomenon continues to resurface and gathers steam over time only to die out later on, and then resurfaces again. It is also curious how so many traders overlook the main item that actually causes a stock price to rise, and that is "value" of the company. Without value under the stock, there is virtually no reason for the stock price to rise. If there were 100M shares O/S and there were another 100M shares naked short, without any value, there is no reason that the stock price should rise. Once value is placed under the stock, only then can a price per share be applied to each "legitimate" share in the marketplace. Without this value placed under the stock, nothing from nothing still equals nothing. The MM's and offshore hedge funds are well aware of this, and that is the primary reason they short different stocks into oblivion, because they know without real value, they have nothing to worry about.

A prime example of this is sometime back in 2003 when Urban released a PR urging all the shareholders to pull their certificates to combat the alleged naked shorting problem the company was experiencing. Looking back in retrospect we can now see this was completely ineffective, why? because the key ingredient was still missing, and that was "value". As time progressed forward a number of other tactics were used by the company to combat the naked short problem such as a stock symbol change, a CUSIP change and a few other things, but guess what? they were all ineffective, they accomplished absolutely nothing, why? because the key ingredient was still missing, value.

Over the weekend a few conversations were held with Urban at the Seattle races, and the cert pulling frenzy has been kicking into full swing once again. The truth behind these conversations has been twisted and contorted in so many different ways it is amazing we are still talking about the same subject by now. The truth of the conversation was, somebody asked Urban if it would do any good for the shareholders to start pulling their certificates? Urban replied by saying "I believe it would help what we are trying to accomplish" He never said "I urge all shareholders to pull their certificates" that statement never happened, why? because he tried that back in 2003 and it didn't work, why would he try it again?.

So a few shareholders who are caught up in the hysteria of being able to participate in what could be categorized as the stock play of a lifetime, and from the looks of the PR's released over the last 5 weeks or so, this may indeed be the case. One thing people need to realize is that we are dealing with very sophisticated individuals that go around naked shorting stocks, as well as the individuals who facilitate those trades. These folks have financial, informational and legal resources that are far beyond what most of us can comprehend, and if we all really knew the truth as to these resources we would quickly understand why it is a futile attempt to play the cert pulling game. Now, enter Roger Glenn, here is one of the world's foremost authorities in securities enforcement and corporate governance working on our behalf. This should be a very strong indicator to all of us as to the lengths a company must go to in order to bust the naked short sellers, and the people who facilitate the naked short sales. When all of the shareholders start trying to help Roger Glenn by pulling their certificates and causing all kinds of other chaos, they are actually making Roger's job more difficult by muddying up the waters with certs flying back and forth between shareholders and their brokerage firms, not to mention the DTC.

People need to chill out and let the man do his job, Roger is THE only person that can resolve the issues we are facing if there is indeed a large naked short position here. Neither you, me or anybody else can take care of this problem, the complexity of everything it takes to resolve the issue is far beyond anybody's comprehension. Everybody has two stock dividends coming their way near the end of August. Kick back, wait for it to come to you, and try not to stress out so much because it won't do you any good, how far has it gotten you in the last 3 weeks? It is easy to see the company is moving forward by the string of PR's that have been released over the last 5-6 weeks. Building a company and providing value takes time, it doesn't happen overnight, so we all had better get used to it. It would also be nice if we discontinued twisting other people's words around to suit our fantasies of becoming fabulously wealthy, if it is to happen, it will happen when the company is ready to make it happen. You may have good intentions of helping everyone out but in fact you are only compounding the problems the company and Roger Glenn are trying to solve for us. So in other words, CHILL OUT and quit making this more complicated than it needs to be!

posted July 26, 2004 18:02            

quote:

---

I'd say you are absolutly correct. So when the TA sees that Ameritrade is holding 4 million shares they send the dividends to Ameritrade who then distrinbutes them to the proper accounts.

---

Agreed. At least to the best of my knowledge that's how it would work.

posted July 26, 2004 18:32            

I don't expect to spend much time wondering and listening to the spinning of what ifs on the issue. The shares exist in my account regardless of their state of dress-nekid or clothed.

JEFF will move off the price and cover eventually or take his chances with the SEC, and when they are through then the shareholder and class action lawsuits assuming he is naked shorting. And if he is and continues to do so maybe he will move off the price in handcuffs.

posted July 26, 2004 18:36            

You are very much correct!

As to what happened in the case of CIM, I do not know much about it, except that it was much the same kind of talk, etc. and now is not traded and considered to be worthless. Just a thought, the worthless part may be why the question never came up.

I'm giving up on trying to explain this. Already some seem to be suggesting that explaining the facts, even up to a certain point that one knows is factual, is bashing.

posted July 26, 2004 18:40            

Of course the lawless part was a joke! Didn't I put LOL after it? If not, I meant to.

posted July 26, 2004 18:45            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wallace#1:
Up,

You are very much correct!

As to what happened in the case of CIM, I do not know much about it, except that it was much the same kind of talk, etc. and now is not traded and considered to be worthless. Just a thought, the worthless part may be why the question never came up.

I'm giving up on trying to explain this. Already some seem to be suggesting that explaining the facts, even up to a certain point that one knows is factual, is bashing.

Guess I will take a nap and check in later to review all the wild stories and accusations.

---