RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Good news for EATHmmm...I think you are failing to recognize that the dad analogy is poor because unlike a father, you actually have a choice on who to invest in here. You aren’t stuck with evolution/fate.
DiligentSon wrote: Yes, I know...your dad could beat up my dad. Thanks for proving my point.
THCbeverages wrote: TNY's outlook is way more promising than EAT's though (even if you ignore the two share structures). There are already 10-20 companies out there with high-end chocolates that taste great and have a high bioavailability (and even some that have a much quicker onset than standard edibles). So EAT is not even close to being first-to-market with a unique product. TNY's situation is the exact opposite...you would have trouble even listing one other company that provides a beverage that tastes great, has no sugar, has a high bioavailability, premium flavours, etc.
DiligentSon wrote: The real joke is the palpable disdain on this board for EAT. You guys just keep playing "my dad could beat up your dad", while the savvy will make money from both. The reality is that EAT has products on the market, perfecting production of others(much like our beloved TNY), all while establishing an expanding multi-state and multi-national footprint. There's been a significant amount of negative influence on this board that might leave some of you swimming when the tides rises, while others throw life preservers from the yacht. No start-up is without flaws and speed bumps, TNY's are not more or less glamorous than EAT's. Those high horses aren't tall enough to save you from the flood waters. Make money, period.
THCbeverages wrote:
lol Canada House Wellness?? What a joke. Tinley is going to be doing a deal with one of the big, prominent licensed producers. The only connection between TNY and EAT is that Posner still owns more than 1 million shares of TNY. That is all.