Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PaperProphet who wrote (15287)	12/14/2011 12:24:34 PM
From: old 'n cranky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53574

"As you said, though, if you 'connect the dots', with that and other information in the filings, you can come to the conclusion that the sale to Coco must be fuel derived from plastic" My communication skills must be failing me. I did not intend to suggest that connecting the dots would result in the above conclusion. I intended to suggest that it would require a connecting of the dots in order to come to the conclusion that this statement might be fraudulent in its implication that the Coco fuel was made by the conversion of plastic waste products: "Coco Paving has stated it is pleased with our Plastic2Oil fuel."

To: PaperProphet who wrote (15287)	12/14/2011 1:24:30 PM
From: PaperProphet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

I would say, just like Mr. Rivera did, Mr. Bordynuik is deluding himself if he thinks wordplay is a defense. If this gets to court, Mr. Bordynuik can say that he never technically said that the "petroleum distillate" was derived from plastic but the context of what he said about the sale to Coco is certainly leading and suggestive to saying it was derived from plastic. In the suit against Mr. Rivera, the SEC litigated Mr. Rivera based on scienter. It would be the same with Mr. Bordynuik.