RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Awfully Quiet illumination1 wrote: Yes, maybe there was a misunderstanding but no i said he is undervaluing the shares--that is not
an attack just my opinion. Then he started to get hostile about it calling me thick? I think he fired
the first shot. Regardless, i had told him where i was coming from and why these are not as
cheap as what he was claiming but i did not attack him at all. I will have to go back through the
post. And then the peanut gallery has the gall to say what they did. I had given my reasons
as to how i value shares stating them very clearly. so no i didn't from my recollection. I valued
the shares at $2 plus correct--then he got all up in arms about things and did a poor job
in stating them i would still disagree with the .10 warrents and pricing for all the reasons
I have given you can't mathematically value a company that is either 0 revenue or just
very little. what would that show? i calculated about .02 if even and then at 10 times the
revenue that would be .20 but are these where they trade worth .20??? I would say no
again because of all the business we were getting and all that we will get. You can't
value any company on a single fixed point when there is more monies coming in i find
that to be silly. I also stated that a value of any stock is what the market see its worth
in accordance to its future potential--so I don't know what was very tough to understand
about that--if you go back just see how called who thick i was patient in explaining my side
I know when i attack someone it is usually they cast the first stone--if someone shows
me otherwise i will be very quick to apologise and really feel bad about--so let it be shown
and i will stand by what i am saying here!
Hi Illum. I just read all of The Revs posts here and in none of them does he mention what he thinks the stock is worth. Since he's long, I assume he thinks they are worth more than what they are currently trading at. I think you are accusing him unjustly.