To: blessed who wrote (611 ) 11/29/1998 8:00:00 AM From: ztect Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 2585
Blessed do you even realize the implications of what you just wrote? "..As for Ernst & Young, they have been contacted in the past, and have verified that they have done work for GGNC.[when] They have since been replaced by an in house accountant. Here is a cut and paste of some of your questions being answered back on Nov. 8th..." You don't gain any credibility by stating that the you have replaced one of the top accounting firms in the world with an "in-house" accountant. Now, in reality GIC is in no way affiliated with E & Y, and just used the name of a big eight accounting firm to lure suckers for investors...that is what you just wrote. Financials from an "in-house" accountant are complete BS. ========================================================= Rereading this post from you, "...closely held by insiders is 11.2 million. The total amount in the public float is 7.4 million..." Or in other words the time line is now 9/26/98- 1.3 mill in float 11/2/98- 3.5 mil in float 11/8/98- 7.4 mil in float Now have you seen the 8-K explaining the increase? Do you even know what a form 8-K is? Does their "in house" accountant even know what a 8-k is? If you believe IR, you're either affiliated with the company, the newsletter or a complete moron. "...I have contacted Oxford before, regarding another stock (ADOT), which they are the transfer co. for, and been told that they will not release this information without written consent from the company. I guess it is just their policy...." Yeah right....you have zero intergrity and zero credibility. How much you want to bet that Oxford has nothing to do with GIC either? ztect