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: Steady_on who wrote (25170)	5/28/2012 1:57:11 PM
From: SteveF	Respond to of 53574

"Why would you suddenly decide to invest in JBI based on the name of a person that was seen publically at the AGM." It wasn't public, that's the point. You had to be on Bordynuik's list to be privy to that information. He lied to the public about making videos available later. "The Public" still has no idea if any of the grandiose claims attributed to Bordynuik by anonymous iHub promoters were actually made - that's what makes it inside information. And sleazy. I agree that nobody should care that a billionaire was also duped by this scam. But that only begs the question of why the company's "supporters" felt the need to post about that nameless billionaire 5,000 times since the last AGM if no suckers might be swayed by it? Honeywell is a shareholder too, right?

To: Steady_on who wrote (25170)	5/28/2012 3:58:41 PM
From: jimmenknee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

I'm not the one using the $10/bbl with nothing to back the math except for 2 employees at 1 of 3 locations... ... so I am not inclined to want to do the amount of work required. You aren't inclined either-- are you? Which was the original point I believe-- you accept the baseless claim by JBI. All discussion is derived from that baseless claim. I've always assumed the baseless claim was derived from absolute free input, 2 employees watching the process and the customer carting off the product. That may be allowable to isolate under CoGS, but it doesn't account for all operational costs associated with P2O... ... and so far the message board hard-core proponents have done a great job of explaining away the overall burn rate as predominantly non-operational one-time charges and/or just the temporary cost of emerging from a development stage company. Silly on its face, but effective apparently. All boards would benefit from a "long" doing critical analysis-- but with all due respect -- I just don't see that coming from you anytime soon.