As far as the MM's passing air shares, from the looks of the recent volume I'd say that is drying up quickly. Technically they cannot short the stock until they are off the SHO threshold report. As I said Technically. So it doesn't mean that they have stopped but I'm sure that it has slowed considerably.
GLTA Wally
The less shareholders trade the more apparent what they are really doing is. Take away the cover and there they are in all their glory.
Does anyone get it yet?
I completely agree with you. The MM's tried the past 2 days to cause a selloff and failed. If it continues the PPS will continue to rise.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazing that you guys are still talking about this coming share issuance...which cannot happen in the expected time frame, for two reasons......No A/S change notification has occurred, and it must, as has been posted before, referencing the SEC rules. Look it up.
And, SEC Rule 10b-17 DOES apply, with no 10 day notice given, as this share issuance is NOT exempted from that rule.
Regardless, you all can say it isn't dilution or a forward split, but the market will determine the share price, The notice that Rufus has given is irrlevant as to share value....same as has been the case all along.
Posts: 36 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rburnout: Amazing that you guys are still talking about this coming share issuance...which cannot happen in the expected time frame, for two reasons......No A/S change notification has occurred, and it must, as has been posted before, referencing the SEC rules. Look it up.
And, SEC Rule 10b-17 DOES apply, with no 10 day notice given, as this share issuance is NOT exempted from that rule.
Regardless, you all can say it isn't dilution or a forward split, but the market will determine the share price, The notice that Rufus has given is irrlevant as to share value....same as has been the case all along.
I find more of where they can do it..than where they can't...
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rburnout: Seems no one has conclusively shown that it isn't applicable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusively shown it? No..can you conclusively show that they can't?
2.3 Merger consideration (c) In the event the Buyer changes the number of shares of the Buyer's Stock issued and outstanding prior to the Effective Time as a result of a stock split, stock dividend or other distribution payable in Buyer's Stock or securities convertible into Buyer's Stock or similar recapitalization with respect to such stock or effects a reclassification, combination or other change with respect to Buyer's Stock (each a "Stock Adjustment" ) and the record date therefore (in the case of a stock dividend) or the effective date thereof (in the case of a stock split or similar recapitalization, reclassification or combination for which a record date is not established) shall be prior to the Effective Time.
5.3 Buyers stock
a) The authorized capital stock of the Buyer consists of 200,000,000 shares of common stock, $.001 par value per share, of which 62,157,721 shares are issued and outstanding as of the date of this Agreement, and except for such shares, there are no shares of capital stock of the Buyer outstanding. There are options see Exhibit D (" FHAL Financials" ). In addition, there are 10,000,000 shares of capital stock reserved under the Fronthaul Group Inc. Compensation Plan for Outside Direct
Doesn't this sentence here... The Surviving Holdings Company shall use its reasonable best efforts to obtain any regulatory approvals referred to in the first sentence of this Section 6.2(b)(i) prior to the Closing Date and the directors will be as follows
And the first sentence that they are tallking about is... (a) Reservation of Shares of the Buyer's Stock . The Buyer shall reserve for issuance a sufficient number of shares of the Buyer's Stock to cover the issuances of such stock required hereby and shall file such forms as may be required to notify Over the Counter NASDAQ Bulletin Board of Buyer's intent to list on the NASDAQ National Market System the additional shares of Surviving Holdings Company stock to be issued as part of the Merger Consideration.
What I "get" out of those statements is that as far as the merger goes they can do what they decide to do with the share structure...
"reasonable best efforts" NOBO list? And it was incorrect in the begining...but they did try...couldn't get the info they needed and then made the decision to increase shares?
(d) Shareholder Approval . Subject to Section 6.1(c) , the Company shall, at the earliest practicable date following the effective date of the Registration Statement covering the Buyer's Stock to be issued in the Merger, (i) promptly and duly call, give notice of, convene and hold a meeting of its shareholders for the purpose of voting to approve this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the Merger, (ii) take all reasonable action to solicit and obtain such approval
(a) Reservation of Shares of the Buyer's Stock . The Buyer shall reserve for issuance a sufficient number of shares of the Buyer's Stock to cover the issuances of such stock required hereby and shall file such forms as may be required to notify Over the Counter NASDAQ Bulletin Board of Buyer's intent to list on the NASDAQ National Market System the additional shares of Surviving Holdings Company stock to be issued as part of the Merger Consideration
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rburnout: Amazing that you guys are still talking about this coming share issuance...which cannot happen in the expected time frame, for two reasons......No A/S change notification has occurred, and it must, as has been posted before, referencing the SEC rules. Look it up.
And, SEC Rule 10b-17 DOES apply, with no 10 day notice given, as this share issuance is NOT exempted from that rule.
Regardless, you all can say it isn't dilution or a forward split, but the market will determine the share price, The notice that Rufus has given is irrlevant as to share value....same as has been the case all along.
WRONG ANSWER, smoke one for me!
Posts: 180 | From: Grants Pass , Or | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rburnout: Amazing that you guys are still talking about this coming share issuance...which cannot happen in the expected time frame, for two reasons......No A/S change notification has occurred, and it must, as has been posted before, referencing the SEC rules. Look it up.
And, SEC Rule 10b-17 DOES apply, with no 10 day notice given, as this share issuance is NOT exempted from that rule.
Regardless, you all can say it isn't dilution or a forward split, but the market will determine the share price, The notice that Rufus has given is irrlevant as to share value....same as has been the case all along.
If you don't think it can happen, why are you here ? Sell your stock and go on to a better choice that I am sure you can find. You have been saying this for two days now. Just go and find another. I wish you the very best of luck.
Posts: 557 | From: UpState New York | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rburnout: Amazing that you guys are still talking about this coming share issuance...which cannot happen in the expected time frame, for two reasons......No A/S change notification has occurred, and it must, as has been posted before, referencing the SEC rules. Look it up.
And, SEC Rule 10b-17 DOES apply, with no 10 day notice given, as this share issuance is NOT exempted from that rule.
Regardless, you all can say it isn't dilution or a forward split, but the market will determine the share price, The notice that Rufus has given is irrlevant as to share value....same as has been the case all along.
If you don't think it can happen, why are you here ? Sell your stock and go on to a better choice that I am sure you can find. You have been saying this for two days now. Just go and find another. I wish you the very best of luck.
RIGHT ANSWER, God job doc!
Posts: 180 | From: Grants Pass , Or | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rburnout: Amazing that you guys are still talking about this coming share issuance...which cannot happen in the expected time frame, for two reasons......No A/S change notification has occurred, and it must, as has been posted before, referencing the SEC rules. Look it up.
And, SEC Rule 10b-17 DOES apply, with no 10 day notice given, as this share issuance is NOT exempted from that rule.
Regardless, you all can say it isn't dilution or a forward split, but the market will determine the share price, The notice that Rufus has given is irrlevant as to share value....same as has been the case all along.
I find more of where they can do it..than where they can't...
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rburnout: Seems no one has conclusively shown that it isn't applicable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusively shown it? No..can you conclusively show that they can't?
2.3 Merger consideration (c) In the event the Buyer changes the number of shares of the Buyer's Stock issued and outstanding prior to the Effective Time as a result of a stock split, stock dividend or other distribution payable in Buyer's Stock or securities convertible into Buyer's Stock or similar recapitalization with respect to such stock or effects a reclassification, combination or other change with respect to Buyer's Stock (each a "Stock Adjustment" ) and the record date therefore (in the case of a stock dividend) or the effective date thereof (in the case of a stock split or similar recapitalization, reclassification or combination for which a record date is not established) shall be prior to the Effective Time.
5.3 Buyers stock
a) The authorized capital stock of the Buyer consists of 200,000,000 shares of common stock, $.001 par value per share, of which 62,157,721 shares are issued and outstanding as of the date of this Agreement, and except for such shares, there are no shares of capital stock of the Buyer outstanding. There are options see Exhibit D (" FHAL Financials" ). In addition, there are 10,000,000 shares of capital stock reserved under the Fronthaul Group Inc. Compensation Plan for Outside Direct
Doesn't this sentence here... The Surviving Holdings Company shall use its reasonable best efforts to obtain any regulatory approvals referred to in the first sentence of this Section 6.2(b)(i) prior to the Closing Date and the directors will be as follows
And the first sentence that they are tallking about is... (a) Reservation of Shares of the Buyer's Stock . The Buyer shall reserve for issuance a sufficient number of shares of the Buyer's Stock to cover the issuances of such stock required hereby and shall file such forms as may be required to notify Over the Counter NASDAQ Bulletin Board of Buyer's intent to list on the NASDAQ National Market System the additional shares of Surviving Holdings Company stock to be issued as part of the Merger Consideration.
What I "get" out of those statements is that as far as the merger goes they can do what they decide to do with the share structure...
"reasonable best efforts" NOBO list? And it was incorrect in the begining...but they did try...couldn't get the info they needed and then made the decision to increase shares?
(d) Shareholder Approval . Subject to Section 6.1(c) , the Company shall, at the earliest practicable date following the effective date of the Registration Statement covering the Buyer's Stock to be issued in the Merger, (i) promptly and duly call, give notice of, convene and hold a meeting of its shareholders for the purpose of voting to approve this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the Merger, (ii) take all reasonable action to solicit and obtain such approval
(a) Reservation of Shares of the Buyer's Stock . The Buyer shall reserve for issuance a sufficient number of shares of the Buyer's Stock to cover the issuances of such stock required hereby and shall file such forms as may be required to notify Over the Counter NASDAQ Bulletin Board of Buyer's intent to list on the NASDAQ National Market System the additional shares of Surviving Holdings Company stock to be issued as part of the Merger Consideration
10 of Merged Thoughts,
playing catch-up? I see you could better help reader. ie, even I have a hard time following this post...not clear when you're quoting or speaking as yourself.
posted
All I want to say is ....Rufus said he is going to do something that has never been done before. I choose to believe him. Can it hurt to wait till at least the 30th ? For two days Rburnout, you have argued that it can't and won't happen. Quite frankly, I think they got tired of you at HSM also. Please stop. People here have tried to explain to you what we have found. If it is not enough info for you......GO. You obviously are way to smart for us. I have tried to be polite with you as have all of the others here .... but after a while this is getting stale. If you people want this to continue, I'll just go to bed or watch a movie. I am tired of him.
Posts: 557 | From: UpState New York | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rburnout: Amazing that you guys are still talking about this coming share issuance...which cannot happen in the expected time frame, for two reasons......No A/S change notification has occurred, and it must, as has been posted before, referencing the SEC rules. Look it up.
And, SEC Rule 10b-17 DOES apply, with no 10 day notice given, as this share issuance is NOT exempted from that rule.
Regardless, you all can say it isn't dilution or a forward split, but the market will determine the share price, The notice that Rufus has given is irrlevant as to share value....same as has been the case all along.
I find more of where they can do it..than where they can't...
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rburnout: Seems no one has conclusively shown that it isn't applicable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusively shown it? No..can you conclusively show that they can't?
2.3 Merger consideration (c) In the event the Buyer changes the number of shares of the Buyer's Stock issued and outstanding prior to the Effective Time as a result of a stock split, stock dividend or other distribution payable in Buyer's Stock or securities convertible into Buyer's Stock or similar recapitalization with respect to such stock or effects a reclassification, combination or other change with respect to Buyer's Stock (each a "Stock Adjustment" ) and the record date therefore (in the case of a stock dividend) or the effective date thereof (in the case of a stock split or similar recapitalization, reclassification or combination for which a record date is not established) shall be prior to the Effective Time.
5.3 Buyers stock
a) The authorized capital stock of the Buyer consists of 200,000,000 shares of common stock, $.001 par value per share, of which 62,157,721 shares are issued and outstanding as of the date of this Agreement, and except for such shares, there are no shares of capital stock of the Buyer outstanding. There are options see Exhibit D (" FHAL Financials" ). In addition, there are 10,000,000 shares of capital stock reserved under the Fronthaul Group Inc. Compensation Plan for Outside Direct
Doesn't this sentence here... The Surviving Holdings Company shall use its reasonable best efforts to obtain any regulatory approvals referred to in the first sentence of this Section 6.2(b)(i) prior to the Closing Date and the directors will be as follows
And the first sentence that they are tallking about is... (a) Reservation of Shares of the Buyer's Stock . The Buyer shall reserve for issuance a sufficient number of shares of the Buyer's Stock to cover the issuances of such stock required hereby and shall file such forms as may be required to notify Over the Counter NASDAQ Bulletin Board of Buyer's intent to list on the NASDAQ National Market System the additional shares of Surviving Holdings Company stock to be issued as part of the Merger Consideration.
What I "get" out of those statements is that as far as the merger goes they can do what they decide to do with the share structure...
"reasonable best efforts" NOBO list? And it was incorrect in the begining...but they did try...couldn't get the info they needed and then made the decision to increase shares?
(d) Shareholder Approval . Subject to Section 6.1(c) , the Company shall, at the earliest practicable date following the effective date of the Registration Statement covering the Buyer's Stock to be issued in the Merger, (i) promptly and duly call, give notice of, convene and hold a meeting of its shareholders for the purpose of voting to approve this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the Merger, (ii) take all reasonable action to solicit and obtain such approval
(a) Reservation of Shares of the Buyer's Stock . The Buyer shall reserve for issuance a sufficient number of shares of the Buyer's Stock to cover the issuances of such stock required hereby and shall file such forms as may be required to notify Over the Counter NASDAQ Bulletin Board of Buyer's intent to list on the NASDAQ National Market System the additional shares of Surviving Holdings Company stock to be issued as part of the Merger Consideration
10 of Merged Thoughts,
playing catch-up? I see you could better help reader. ie, even I have a hard time following this post...not clear when you're quoting or speaking as yourself.
I couldn't have said that better myself, good post tex.
Posts: 180 | From: Grants Pass , Or | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I see you folks choose to quote Rufus, but are incapable of discussing the actual SEC rules. Rufus does not make the rules.
Also, this latest thread is entitled DD....well, folks, do some.
How about this one: show us why the FHAL financials were not included in the 10-k, when it is required that they be, as it is supposedly a merger document, among other things.
There's more questions that don't seem to be discussed here, though I must admit that you folks are not the airheads like most at HSM....
How about those carbon credits? apparantly Brazil wants no part of them, AND the entire world market was only about $450mm as recently as 2004, not $4 trillion as MA claims just for Ecowood.
The below is excerpted from a post elsewhere from an illustrious but banned poster:
"Currently, the world carbon credit market is a $450 million marketplace, but it is expected to grow to a $23 billion one by 2010."
- Mongabay dot com, April 2006
"The world carbon credit market registered deals worth $11.3 billion euros last year, up sharply from $452 million in 2004 according to Econergy, New York-based clean energy investment, management and consulting group."
- Mongabay dot com, April 2006
--
Preservation of Amazon rainforest does NOT qualify for carbon credits:
posted
rburnout: First you have yet to show anything in regard to DD. You pointed to Rule 10-17B and asked how well read a little further and the answer could be there. Since I don't work for NASD and am not privy to sensitive correspondance, I have no idea if this is part of the plan but it sure could be.
From Rule 10-17B Section b. number 2
The Commission, upon written request or upon its own motion, exempts the issuer from compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section either unconditionally or on specified terms or conditions, as not constituting a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance comprehended within the purpose of this section; or
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has been very interesting reading in the new thread, and it sounds like there are several other chat sites about the company and what has transpired.
I would assume there is a lot of interest and money at stake.
Assuming that we take a positive attitude w/o the negativity and truly believe in Rufus and that MMs are manipulating the PPS because they can, then let's form an alliance and manipulate the stock in a positive fashion for our benefit.
If we truly believe in this, then let's put more of our money where our mouths are. Sitting back and taking no action doesn't make sense.
"There are costs and risks associated with any plan of action, but the costs and risks of comfortable inaction far outweigh those of action," John F. Kennedy
Posts: 106 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wallymac: rburnout: First you have yet to show anything in regard to DD. You pointed to Rule 10-17B and asked how well read a little further and the answer could be there. Since I don't work for NASD and am not privy to sensitive correspondance, I have no idea if this is part of the plan but it sure could be.
From Rule 10-17B Section b. number 2
The Commission, upon written request or upon its own motion, exempts the issuer from compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section either unconditionally or on specified terms or conditions, as not constituting a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance comprehended within the purpose of this section; or
GLTA Wally
sorry, wally, not up to date. Your excerpt doesn't clear it up for me...
I see an exemption, but unclear on first read what the exemption is based upon.
quote:Originally posted by rburnout: Well, I see you folks choose to quote Rufus, but are incapable of discussing the actual SEC rules. Rufus does not make the rules.
Also, this latest thread is entitled DD....well, folks, do some.
How about this one: show us why the FHAL financials were not included in the 10-k, when it is required that they be, as it is supposedly a merger document, among other things.
There's more questions that don't seem to be discussed here, though I must admit that you folks are not the airheads like most at HSM....
How about those carbon credits? apparantly Brazil wants no part of them, AND the entire world market was only about $450mm as recently as 2004, not $4 trillion as MA claims just for Ecowood.
The below is excerpted from a post elsewhere from an illustrious but banned poster:
"Currently, the world carbon credit market is a $450 million marketplace, but it is expected to grow to a $23 billion one by 2010."
- Mongabay dot com, April 2006
"The world carbon credit market registered deals worth $11.3 billion euros last year, up sharply from $452 million in 2004 according to Econergy, New York-based clean energy investment, management and consulting group."
- Mongabay dot com, April 2006
--
Preservation of Amazon rainforest does NOT qualify for carbon credits:
wow you r burnout, for reals huh? take your prozac like your doctor told you too!
Posts: 180 | From: Grants Pass , Or | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't argue with ya Wally....I mostly read and evaluate the DD that others have done, and read what Rufus has put out, both in the form of news and filings, and posting on chat sites, and message boards. I then make my own conclusions, which are not complimentary of the company. That is my opinion, and it is fair to present it, as both sides should be able to be openly presented and discussed, without ridicule. So far, I've seen no board where that pleasant environment exists.
So, let me leave you with another of my lame copy/pastes, from a fellow who does use somewhat overly inflammatory language, right or wrong. This one is mainly just funny, though it does poke some well deserved fun at your leader.
<Posted by: Our-Street In reply to: mavericktrader who wrote msg# 106628 Date:10/20/2006 11:16:55 AM Post #of 108027
You all have been mistaken about me on "numinous" occasions and I want you to "reframe" from turning this into a festering pool of frauds and bashers.
"They is" every reason to be concerned about the state of this 10K and the E. I will post my update here shortly.. so you can better understand what kind of trouble this 10K can "brung".
quote:Originally posted by rburnout: Well, I see you folks choose to quote Rufus, but are incapable of discussing the actual SEC rules. Rufus does not make the rules.
Also, this latest thread is entitled DD....well, folks, do some.
How about this one: show us why the FHAL financials were not included in the 10-k, when it is required that they be, as it is supposedly a merger document, among other things.
There's more questions that don't seem to be discussed here, though I must admit that you folks are not the airheads like most at HSM....
How about those carbon credits? apparantly Brazil wants no part of them, AND the entire world market was only about $450mm as recently as 2004, not $4 trillion as MA claims just for Ecowood.
The below is excerpted from a post elsewhere from an illustrious but banned poster:
"Currently, the world carbon credit market is a $450 million marketplace, but it is expected to grow to a $23 billion one by 2010."
- Mongabay dot com, April 2006
"The world carbon credit market registered deals worth $11.3 billion euros last year, up sharply from $452 million in 2004 according to Econergy, New York-based clean energy investment, management and consulting group."
- Mongabay dot com, April 2006
--
Preservation of Amazon rainforest does NOT qualify for carbon credits:
quote:Originally posted by rburnout: Well, I see you folks choose to quote Rufus, but are incapable of discussing the actual SEC rules. Rufus does not make the rules.
Also, this latest thread is entitled DD....well, folks, do some.
How about this one: show us why the FHAL financials were not included in the 10-k, when it is required that they be, as it is supposedly a merger document, among other things.
There's more questions that don't seem to be discussed here, though I must admit that you folks are not the airheads like most at HSM....
How about those carbon credits? apparantly Brazil wants no part of them, AND the entire world market was only about $450mm as recently as 2004, not $4 trillion as MA claims just for Ecowood.
The below is excerpted from a post elsewhere from an illustrious but banned poster:
"Currently, the world carbon credit market is a $450 million marketplace, but it is expected to grow to a $23 billion one by 2010."
- Mongabay dot com, April 2006
"The world carbon credit market registered deals worth $11.3 billion euros last year, up sharply from $452 million in 2004 according to Econergy, New York-based clean energy investment, management and consulting group."
- Mongabay dot com, April 2006
--
Preservation of Amazon rainforest does NOT qualify for carbon credits:
Reason for FHAL financials not being in the 10K as I posted on page 2 of this thread. Also found with in the 10K
from the 10K:
On July 8, 2006, subsequent to our audit period and thus not included in the Company's financial statements, the Company, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with the FrontHaul Group, Inc., (FHAL). The Merger Agreement stipulates that, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp. will be merged with and into FHAL, with the Company continuing after the merger as the surviving corporation. (b)The Merger was fully completed on September 13, 2006 and FHAL will be reflected as a Discontinued Operations in the Company's financial statements in the next quarterly report.(/b)
on the question of the carbon credits I think you should be referring the question to ECO-Wood, the private company that Mike Alexander recetnly purschased a majority interest in and is Negotiating with CSDH to handle thier assets. At this point in time it has no realtionship to CSHD and therefore is not a point of reference when dealing with this stock.
Got game?
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rburnout: Well, I see you folks choose to quote Rufus, but are incapable of discussing the actual SEC rules. Rufus does not make the rules.
Also, this latest thread is entitled DD....well, folks, do some.
How about this one: show us why the FHAL financials were not included in the 10-k, when it is required that they be, as it is supposedly a merger document, among other things.
There's more questions that don't seem to be discussed here, though I must admit that you folks are not the airheads like most at HSM....
How about those carbon credits? apparantly Brazil wants no part of them, AND the entire world market was only about $450mm as recently as 2004, not $4 trillion as MA claims just for Ecowood.
The below is excerpted from a post elsewhere from an illustrious but banned poster:
"Currently, the world carbon credit market is a $450 million marketplace, but it is expected to grow to a $23 billion one by 2010."
- Mongabay dot com, April 2006
"The world carbon credit market registered deals worth $11.3 billion euros last year, up sharply from $452 million in 2004 according to Econergy, New York-based clean energy investment, management and consulting group."
- Mongabay dot com, April 2006
--
Preservation of Amazon rainforest does NOT qualify for carbon credits:
Reason for FHAL financials not being in the 10K as I posted on page 2 of this thread. Also found with in the 10K
from the 10K:
On July 8, 2006, subsequent to our audit period and thus not included in the Company's financial statements, the Company, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with the FrontHaul Group, Inc., (FHAL). The Merger Agreement stipulates that, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp. will be merged with and into FHAL, with the Company continuing after the merger as the surviving corporation. (b)The Merger was fully completed on September 13, 2006 and FHAL will be reflected as a Discontinued Operations in the Company's financial statements in the next quarterly report.(/b)
on the question of the carbon credits I think you should be referring the question to ECO-Wood, the private company that Mike Alexander recetnly purschased a majority interest in and is Negotiating with CSDH to handle thier assets. At this point in time it has no realtionship to CSHD and therefore is not a point of reference when dealing with this stock.
quote:Originally posted by wallymac: rburnout: First you have yet to show anything in regard to DD. You pointed to Rule 10-17B and asked how well read a little further and the answer could be there. Since I don't work for NASD and am not privy to sensitive correspondance, I have no idea if this is part of the plan but it sure could be.
From Rule 10-17B Section b. number 2
The Commission, upon written request or upon its own motion, exempts the issuer from compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section either unconditionally or on specified terms or conditions, as not constituting a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance comprehended within the purpose of this section; or
GLTA Wally
sorry, wally, not up to date. Your excerpt doesn't clear it up for me...
I see an exemption, but unclear on first read what the exemption is based upon.
The whole section is dealing with Deceptive or manipulative practices. If the practice is found either by request or by the commission themselves to be non-manipulative or deceptive they can choose to allow it. I would have pasted the whole section but it was rather lengthy.
quote:Originally posted by cbbush: This has been very interesting reading in the new thread, and it sounds like there are several other chat sites about the company and what has transpired.
I would assume there is a lot of interest and money at stake.
Assuming that we take a positive attitude w/o the negativity and truly believe in Rufus and that MMs are manipulating the PPS because they can, then let's form an alliance and manipulate the stock in a positive fashion for our benefit.
If we truly believe in this, then let's put more of our money where our mouths are. Sitting back and taking no action doesn't make sense.
"There are costs and risks associated with any plan of action, but the costs and risks of comfortable inaction far outweigh those of action," John F. Kennedy
Sorry I'm against manipulation in any form. In my book 2 wrongs don't make a right. I'm sure you are attempting to fight fire with fire but all I want is an even playing field. Truth be told I'm in this play for the potential reward. I would like to see the penny market cleaned up and will do what I can to help but this play is a stock play. I won't knowingly participate in any manipulation of stocks.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wallymac: rburnout: First you have yet to show anything in regard to DD. You pointed to Rule 10-17B and asked how well read a little further and the answer could be there. Since I don't work for NASD and am not privy to sensitive correspondance, I have no idea if this is part of the plan but it sure could be.
From Rule 10-17B Section b. number 2
The Commission, upon written request or upon its own motion, exempts the issuer from compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section either unconditionally or on specified terms or conditions, as not constituting a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance comprehended within the purpose of this section; or
GLTA Wally
sorry, wally, not up to date. Your excerpt doesn't clear it up for me...
I see an exemption, but unclear on first read what the exemption is based upon.
The whole section is dealing with Deceptive or manipulative practices. If the practice is found either by request or by the commission themselves to be non-manipulative or deceptive they can choose to allow it. I would have pasted the whole section but it was rather lengthy.
quote:Originally posted by wallymac: rburnout: First you have yet to show anything in regard to DD. You pointed to Rule 10-17B and asked how well read a little further and the answer could be there. Since I don't work for NASD and am not privy to sensitive correspondance, I have no idea if this is part of the plan but it sure could be.
From Rule 10-17B Section b. number 2
The Commission, upon written request or upon its own motion, exempts the issuer from compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section either unconditionally or on specified terms or conditions, as not constituting a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance comprehended within the purpose of this section; or
GLTA Wally
sorry, wally, not up to date. Your excerpt doesn't clear it up for me...
I see an exemption, but unclear on first read what the exemption is based upon.
The whole section is dealing with Deceptive or manipulative practices. If the practice is found either by request or by the commission themselves to be non-manipulative or deceptive they can choose to allow it. I would have pasted the whole section but it was rather lengthy.
but, boy! must say...it's the never-ending story, eh?
and I *don't* mean this issue's drama, necessarily...I mean the "loopholes" and intricacies the the reg-agencies allow.
Lol? are we *really* asking the right questions?
I don't know Tex, if we are asking the right questions or not. Yes the intracacies and "loopholes" appear to be a big part of this play, all the other drama aside. I've learned a great deal from this play and am sure that I have a lot more to learn. Very interesting.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wallymac said -- "Sorry I'm against manipulation in any form. In my book 2 wrongs don't make a right. I'm sure you are attempting to fight fire with fire but all I want is an even playing field. Truth be told I'm in this play for the potential reward. I would like to see the penny market cleaned up and will do what I can to help but this play is a stock play. I won't knowingly participate in any manipulation of stocks."
Wallymac, you have to fight for what you want -- no one is going to give you a level playing field. You are against manipulation but play in a game that is full of manipulation? So, if you are willing to play in a game of manipulation for potential financial reward, you are participating.
We have a lot at stake here, so let's kick some a**. The only way we can win is play by their rules which is the only way we will ever defeat Islamo-facists.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So, if you are willing to play in a game of manipulation for potential financial reward, you are participating.
We have a lot at stake here, so let's kick some a**. The only way we can win is play by their rules which is the only way we will ever defeat Islamo-facists"
lol--good verbiage...
but what *does* it mean?
seriously... specifically
for instance, what are some specific ways to follow up on: "so let's kick some a**. "
posted
Read my earlier post Tex. If the MMs can manipulate, why can't we. If this stock and its management is truly what we believe in, then let's put our money where our mouths are and manipulate the stock in our favor. I don't know how the MMs manipulate, but there seems to be a lot of people on this board that does. So let's come up with a plan of action. Let's do something other than sit back on our laurels.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
As far as the MM's passing air shares, from the looks of the recent volume I'd say that is drying up quickly. Technically they cannot short the stock until they are off the SHO threshold report. As I said Technically. So it doesn't mean that they have stopped but I'm sure that it has slowed considerably.
[quote] "Regulation SHO does not require close-outs of "grandfathered" fails. As noted above, "grandfathered" status applies where the fail position was established prior to the security becoming a threshold security. However, any new fails in a security on the threshold list are subject to the mandatory close-out provisions."
What this is saying is that all the FTD's that were passed out BEFORE we went on the SHO list are "grandfathered" -looked over if you will.
But the kicker is the last line: "However, any new fails in a security on the threshold list are subject to the mandatory close-out provisions."
Or in other words... Any NEW FTD's will have to be cleaned up, under SHO it's 3 days I believe. So yes they can and ARE shorting it. That's NOT an opinion...
Here's how we know... Those who have technical indicators pull up your charts and a "Accumulation/Distribution" Indicator along with Full Stochastoc 10/3/10.
What Acc/Distr. Indicator does: A momentum indicator which tries to gauge supply and demand by discovering if investors are generally “Accumulating” (buying) or “Distributing” (Selling) a certain stock by identifying divergences between stock price and volume flow. It is calculated using the following formula:
Now, KNOWING what this indicator does is the key, now when you put a "Full Stochastic" indicator below it, you can CLEARLY see when Stochastic DIPS so does the Acc/Dist. indicator.
Look at the stock NXG on a YEAR/daily chart. The middle of May there was a dip, ALL my indicators weakened JUST LIKE THEY "SHOULD." *note Acc/Dist. is also POSITIVE.
Look at one more (IMPORTANT!) Pull up a 6 month day chart on "ZION" Notice the zero (neutral) line, the indicator went negative around 7/10 when there was a selloff, when the uptrend started the Acc/Dist. line crosses back to the POSITIVE, and the price went up! -Normal ~
Now let's pull up CSHD... 6 month day chart, notice that Acc/Dist is buried in the NEGATIVE! -22! It went Negative when we ran UP in price!! (??)
On 7/18 while Stochastic and MACD went up, Acc/Dist. went down!
How the heck can that be?!! -It CAN'T!
Acc/Distr. measuresures “Accumulating” (buying) or “Distributing” (Selling) of a stock, and on 7/18 there were 20 million shares bought on a continued run of CSHD.
I believe Portman is right when he said that there is a bigger short position here then what we think, and that there may indeed be some bankrupt short people. With all the buying and holding and even the "No Flip" list that was started at HSM, we are STILL Negative as far as investors accumalating? Come on!...
The only way that could happen is with FTD's (Naked Shorts). IMO ~
Now pull up SSSU, another stock in the news doing a NOBO list and in war with naked shorts. Here the Acc/Dist. indicator was at -125 at one time!
Again, study the two "normal" stocks NXG and ZION, look how the charts SHOULD look, then pull up CSHD and SSSU and "SEE" what naked shorting does to the Acc/Distr. Indicator.
Look at ADOT. ADOT appears to be on the move UP sometime soon. Notice here that Stochastic has been in the "oversold" level for almost 3 months! Acc/Distr. has been rising up just like a plane taking off while Stochastic has been oversold, again this is normal, CSHD, SSSU charts, -NOT normal.
What I just showed you will keep you out of stocks that are being Naked Shorted.
posted
Just stopped back here and he is still here and getting away with it. Thanks glassman .... stop him here just like they did at HSM.
Posts: 557 | From: UpState New York | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |