quote:Originally posted by harpeter: Hello, Harpeter,
Nice to see another new "face"...
If I knew that about share-count, I had forgotten it. I haven't followed every twist-n-turn on this thing; was following early, then was in-n-out quite a bit that fall.
Anyway, what bothered me was two-fold: first, given the date range of the PR(s?) and the announced, let's say, "effective date," I could not see how the paperwork could get to NASDAQ abd cleared in time to make the date; second, if there *was* an end-run around it being a divvy/split, I could not find any regs to support it. On the contrary, what I found was something to the effect that "less than full disclosure on any cash or stock distribution" is considered manipulative.
That's good to know about the share structure, though. Do you know whether the share structure you consider "genuine" can be verified? Or is that one of those "he said, she said" controversies? In other words, do the various camps agree that A/S would have needed to be increased in order to accommodate the 6-for-1?
Tex, I'm going by the last filing that gave the A/S and when you compare the O/S at the time of the announcement, there wouldn't be enough shares to accomodate the 6:1. Now to throw a monkey wrench in the game, Rufus said the O/S was bought up at the time of the merger. So how can millions of shares have been traded since the merger. Makes you go hmmmm
man, I have no idea...
are you saying Harris believed there was a problem with the share structure but he went ahead and announced the 6-for-1?
No, I'm not saying that at all. Just recently someone brought that problem up. And I'm saying that Rufus said recently that was going to be addressed in his next filing. But we were shut down and no filing was made concerning that.
OK, well, these are new ideas--at least to me.
So, given that I got it wrong, help me understand what you *are* saying...
posted
Well, been away watching the Spurs disappoint. Led most of the game until near the end. Hopefully the Celtics can make it through Detroit and then take out the Lakers in the finals.
As for you Tex, I think even those here that have been blinded in the past by your views could see through you today. And as Paul would say, hope you aren't standing too close to the blast zone. Your views on the TPR are comical at best, even you will be brought to your knees when this reaches its conclusion.
Don't be a hater, I have no ill will towards you. Besides, those like you will be kissing Paul's rear end in due time. Perhaps we can share a drink at the CSHD party at the finish line. Heck, I even promise not to rub your nose in it too hard over your tainted views.
Good night all, catch ya tomorrow.
Posts: 98 | From: Nowhereville, USA | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by harpeter: Hello, Harpeter,
Nice to see another new "face"...
If I knew that about share-count, I had forgotten it. I haven't followed every twist-n-turn on this thing; was following early, then was in-n-out quite a bit that fall.
Anyway, what bothered me was two-fold: first, given the date range of the PR(s?) and the announced, let's say, "effective date," I could not see how the paperwork could get to NASDAQ abd cleared in time to make the date; second, if there *was* an end-run around it being a divvy/split, I could not find any regs to support it. On the contrary, what I found was something to the effect that "less than full disclosure on any cash or stock distribution" is considered manipulative.
That's good to know about the share structure, though. Do you know whether the share structure you consider "genuine" can be verified? Or is that one of those "he said, she said" controversies? In other words, do the various camps agree that A/S would have needed to be increased in order to accommodate the 6-for-1?
Tex, I'm going by the last filing that gave the A/S and when you compare the O/S at the time of the announcement, there wouldn't be enough shares to accomodate the 6:1. Now to throw a monkey wrench in the game, Rufus said the O/S was bought up at the time of the merger. So how can millions of shares have been traded since the merger. Makes you go hmmmm
man, I have no idea...
are you saying Harris believed there was a problem with the share structure but he went ahead and announced the 6-for-1?
No, I'm not saying that at all. Just recently someone brought that problem up. And I'm saying that Rufus said recently that was going to be addressed in his next filing. But we were shut down and no filing was made concerning that.
OK, well, these are new ideas--at least to me.
So, given that I got it wrong, help me understand what you *are* saying...
Tex, I didn't say you got it wrong. All I'm saying is I don't know if it was an oversight on Rufus's part or not that the A/S would probably would have had to be raised before a 6:1 could have been initiated. That's all I'm saying.
Posts: 8 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for you Tex, I think even those here that have been blinded in the past by your views could see through you today. And as Paul would say, hope you aren't standing too close to the blast zone. Your views on the TPR are comical at best, even you will be brought to your knees when this reaches its conclusion.
Don't be a hater, I have no ill will towards you. Besides, those like you will be kissing Paul's rear end in due time. Perhaps we can share a drink at the CSHD party at the finish line. Heck, I even promise not to rub your nose in it too hard over your tainted views.
Gunny Gracious!
such inflated language...
"blast zone" "brought to knees" etc etc...
lol, what *are* you Ritalin' on about?
YOU yourself ID'd the TPR as the blasting cap--what's so comical about looking for the actual regulations?
posted
[to cut down on long reposts, harpenter replies to me:]
quote:Tex, I didn't say you got it wrong. All I'm saying is I don't know if it was an oversight on Rufus's part or not that the A/S would probably would have had to be raised before a 6:1 could have been initiated. That's all I'm saying.
Roger, that... and all I'm saying is I'm not familiar with that issue. I agree it could be a problem, whether oversight or not...but I just don't know enough about that to comment.
Prolly some others here remember those questions, though... maybe Wally? maybe Catia? maybe Glassy-Eyed-Bozo?
I have learned a LOT, sense this all started, and one thing I did learn, is , if "someone" needs to start posting on a thread , that had only reached 16 pages in 6 months, they have an agenda.
One good thing to come out of the last few pages, I see a lot of people that I have missed chatting with
Good night to all and to all a good night!!
Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironman, you're more than slightly delusional if you think any of your babble has gotten anyone to "see through" Tex. You're barking up the wrong tree here man. Tex is one of the good guys here. Despite the fact that I often wear out my Tex to English dictionary trying to understand what he's saying, he's always trying to clear things up, not muddy the waters.
You may not agree with his methods, and you may think you aren't muddying the waters, but years of posting here has afforded me to opportunity to see who is here to help others, and who is here to help themselves. Tex is certainly one of the former, and my gut tells me that you are one of the latter, but maybe you'll prove me wrong.
As for his views on the TPR, I'm curious what is comical? Maybe I'm just dumb, but I didn't think he really had any view on it other than trying to find out how one would retroactively put something like that through. I'm not exactly sure why you keep dancing away from that question by saying "Find the Reg that disallows it". If it was a common occurance, like if he was saying "Reverse splits are illegal" it would be easy to give counter examples, but in this case I do think the burden of proof is on you, since you are the one who brought it up in this contex, and still no one has ever demonstrated how this would work, and no one has found any precedent for it.
On the bright side, I am finding all of this rather entertaining, but I am still curious why you would bother coming here to post on a thread that was basically dead, aside from the occassional "Anything new here?" posts. And what good you expected to do by saying "I know stuff, and things will be okay, but I can't tell you when it will happen, or really anything more than that." I just can't see any reason for your posting here. Mayeb if you had waited until everythign was almost done, and said "Something will happen within the week/month, etc" it would be one thing, but getting people riled up for basically no reason seems juvenile to me.
Posts: 5508 | From: Southeastern PA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was about to post regarding the A/S but why. Nothing has changed except for Ironman64 coming over here to stir things up.
IMO, he's probably been banned from posting on other sites so he created a new alias and came here. Nothing he states, can he back up in any way shape or form, other than to say trust him or mark this post.
I'm not willing to play his little game anymore. I think all that ever bought this stock have been played with enough by Rufus and others in his camp. Though Rufus isn't the only one responsible for the current state of affairs, it happened on his watch so he does bear the brunt of responsibility.
What is true or false may never be known. If at some point light is shed on the whole situation then discussion is warranted. At this point hearing the same old we're golden but don't know when it will happen is as useful as ice cubes in an igloo.
The TPR that Rufus wanted to use if I remember correctly was from the bond market and can also be found in P.I.P.E's. The A/S according to the last 10K filed was stated at 100M shares. with Approx 48M outstanding. for a 6 to 1 reset to occur it would have had to be raised. Funny thing is that in an 8K naming Mike Alexander CEO after the SEC action, the O/S was reported at 151M yet no filing anywhere that raised the A/S.
Enough. I posted more than I intended. So I will bid you all a goodnight and say it is nice to see a few familiar posters that I haven't seen for a while.
Good Luck in all your trading and remember to always protect your capital.
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by harpeter: Hello, Harpeter,
Nice to see another new "face"...
If I knew that about share-count, I had forgotten it. I haven't followed every twist-n-turn on this thing; was following early, then was in-n-out quite a bit that fall.
Anyway, what bothered me was two-fold: first, given the date range of the PR(s?) and the announced, let's say, "effective date," I could not see how the paperwork could get to NASDAQ abd cleared in time to make the date; second, if there *was* an end-run around it being a divvy/split, I could not find any regs to support it. On the contrary, what I found was something to the effect that "less than full disclosure on any cash or stock distribution" is considered manipulative.
That's good to know about the share structure, though. Do you know whether the share structure you consider "genuine" can be verified? Or is that one of those "he said, she said" controversies? In other words, do the various camps agree that A/S would have needed to be increased in order to accommodate the 6-for-1?
Tex, I'm going by the last filing that gave the A/S and when you compare the O/S at the time of the announcement, there wouldn't be enough shares to accomodate the 6:1. Now to throw a monkey wrench in the game, Rufus said the O/S was bought up at the time of the merger. So how can millions of shares have been traded since the merger. Makes you go hmmmm
Good Morning!
Arguing about 6:1 etc..... who cares?
Right now the stock is worth jack. Debating on the share structure and 6:1 is at best pointless.
Once the company (tongue in cheek) becomes operational and assets are accounted for AND the shares are worth more than a stick of gum THEN lets get back to that 6:1 discussion. (Not that I think its even logistically/legally possible given the 2yr waste)
The funniest is that some say its going to be great when this all comes to light...followed by "don't ask me where I get my info". Its like guaranteeing life after death. No matter WHAT you are golden because nobody can refute your claims
nevertheless hope everyone is doing well
How about that "CSHD" bond that matured?? (The bond topic is always good for at least 5 pages of Ironman banter lol)
-------------------- Got CSHD? Its fun Posts: 766 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Appreciate the kind PM's that a number of you have sent me the last few days.
Posts: 98 | From: Nowhereville, USA | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
I take it you were speaking of Paul Poetter in your earlier post, since he is located in AZ. A number of shareholders have been "involved" with him prior to the 4309 saga, but he has kind of fallen through the cracks as of late. Did you by chance visit him in Mesa?
Posts: 98 | From: Nowhereville, USA | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
I take it you were speaking of Paul Poetter in your earlier post, since he is located in AZ. A number of shareholders have been "involved" with him prior to the 4309 saga, but he has kind of fallen through the cracks as of late. Did you by chance visit him in Mesa?
Ironman, could you explain what you meant by "involved" with Paul Poetter before the 4309 saga.
Also, have you ever been a Waatle(sp) shareholder?
Posts: 8 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
In regards to Poetter, it is a complex situation. First off, Harris did outright say that Poetter was a wonderful friend and was trustworthy. He introduced Poetter at the Dallas dinner as a true friend or something to that effect. Many shareholders latched on to Poetter because they felt, rightfully so, that Poetter was a good man and Harris and Poetter had each others back. The problem arose when Poetter allegedly began a solicitation of shares (founders shares as he called them) through people like Dr. Jack (SNP) and Stockprophet. These alleged front men for Poetter on many occasions PM'd and emailed individuals, saying one could buy shares for around 5 cents a share, but that it had to be kept secret from Harris. BAM!!, warning lights should have gone off, but most never heeded the caution lights and bought anyway and followed the instruction to hide it from Harris. Those people, imo, were "involved" with Poetter.
As for your second question, I have never had an affiliation with Waatle, although I know several of them and they are great people.
Posts: 98 | From: Nowhereville, USA | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those that think CSHD is toast or are losing hope, think on these questions:
* Why hasn't the 5-star General that was on an early PR with the UN Ambassador, a director, raise a stink if Harris/CSHD is a scam? * Why hasn't the UN filed just one charge or refute anything? * Why hasn't the VENZ government thrown a fit over the bonds? * Why didn't TD Ameritrade, after being openly accused of NSS and other unsavory behavior, file anything like a C&D or even deny the claim? * Why have several shareholders with connections met with brick walls any inquiry they have made with colleagues regarding CSHD?
Lots more questions, very few answers. Ever wonder why?
Posts: 98 | From: Nowhereville, USA | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ironman64: No you didn't....if so, you wouldn't be here. Blunt, but true.
look man, we all have the questions, it's answers we want. seriously, you aren't bringing up any new questions here, i actually read SEC filings, when there's news? there'll be something to talk about, until then? it's just paint drying...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, time will tell ironman. Sometime soon, i don't know when, i'll post that information.
Posts: 869 | From: Az | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bbbmine: Catia -- you have a PM
alas, "Mr. Cat's" box is full...perhaps you are the villain who will be catapulted to your KNEEZZZ when this BLAST ZONE detonates the dis-believers and haterzzzz into the WONDER-ZONE of "how did I get here?" Or, perhaps...you doubt the marvel of this post! Mark some words!
...somewhere...a broom is drearily sweeping--somewhere? a King has no Wife
quote:Originally posted by bbbmine: Catia -- you have a PM
alas, "Mr. Cat's" box is full...perhaps you are the villain who will be catapulted to your KNEEZZZ when this BLAST ZONE detonates the dis-believers and haterzzzz into the WONDER-ZONE of "how did I get here?" Or, perhaps...you doubt the marvel of this post! Mark some words!
...somewhere...a broom is drearily sweeping--somewhere? a King has no Wife
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
