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: $$$Stox_Trader$$$ who wrote (15320)	12/14/2011 7:58:51 PM
From: Joseph B. Schmidt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53574

*and God forbid, could issue PR's that weren't based on BS. ..."* Not proof but a smoking gun. How many came true, other than the stack tests?

To: $$$Stox_Trader$$$ who wrote (15320)	12/14/2011 8:58:57 PM
From: PaperProphet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

Re:<"Does anybody on this board have verifiable proof that Mr Bordynuik is trying to scam investors? I have yet to see absolute proof."> I can't ever stress this enough...investors should demand some proof of value or good rational reasoning to why there may be value from the person asking for money before they ever invest a dime. Demanding proof from skeptics that it's a scam after they've invested is completely backwards. You would make the correct decisions if someone was selling Rolex watches on the side of the street and not look to onlookers for proof the watches are fake before buying--why spend multiples of that amount on stocks and not use the same common sense? Do you think three years is enough to dispatch skeptics by offering some solid evidence of value? When you have this much debate over the simple fundamentals of the claims and the person running the show makes no attempt whatsoever to back up his claims, you have to see at least a tiny red flag waving in the wind.

To: $$$Stox_Trader$$$ who wrote (15320)	12/14/2011 9:45:36 PM
From: jimmenknee	Respond to of 53574

I see you are now raising the bar :) Let's take this 1 step at a time then... John posted on stock message boards. John desired to go public. "... This tells me that Mr Bordynuik is most likely running a legitimate company* and has no intentions on scamming investors. ..."* No rationale person I know of would make that leap of faith off of such little information. Moving forward: John already had PP money by way of a Canadian Private Placement in an amount exceeding $2.5 million. The desire was to swap the private company shares with a public company's tradable registered shares. By reasons attributed to SEC delays/potential delays, that "transaction" morphed into JBII today. (side note: I would argue via the Wells Notice that the "equity issuance(s)" during this frame are being questioned.) In any case, moving on: John connects with a promoter who starts the JBII iHub board. That promoter gathers promoter friends who dominate the board. Meanwhile John asks employees to post on iHub. The original Canadian PP holders join the board. The board stage is set as best as one can be from a "story control" perspective. John implements the stock promotion plan in order to generate enough interest to move the price higher for both the financial benefit of the company as well as to place it in a position to move to a higher exchange. What promoters do best is to generate short-spurts of demand imbalance while also attempting to control the message board version of the "company narrative." John profits by raising the price and the promoters profit by carefully flipping into it. Get enough consistent volume and you can sell into it easily/readily without collapsing the price. Easy to see phase 1-- was JBII legitimate? Yes-- I am not of the camp that marks JBI as a scam. Was the stock price worthy of the price it garnered early on? Absolutely not-- so from a trading/investing "conversation control" perspective I would/do coin it as a "sham" because it's really bagholder generation at this point... it gets worse in the subsequent phase 2 and current phase 3. But let's agree on an understanding of phase 1 before we go forward.