Comment by
CurlyMick on Aug 15, 2012 11:42am
You don't read well and you don't interpret well. You're a fn idiot with nothing else to do but whine.
Comment by
1320racing on Aug 15, 2012 5:14pm
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by
CurlyMick on Aug 15, 2012 6:35pm
To be implicit means that both sides agree on the unstated fact. It isn't based on only one's beliefs. People who don't know how to read and interpret their own language are forgiven...but psychopaths like you who make up crud to suit your own need to sound like a winner...just end up sounding like the whiner and loser you are.
Comment by
1320racing on Aug 15, 2012 6:40pm
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by
schor on Aug 16, 2012 9:12am
I wish I would have shorted this stock when I finally exited it back in 2010 when it started looking like they would not be able to make the process profitable. Really looking bad for them now, basically proven that the process does not work, not much left for this company IMO. Schor
Comment by
1320racing on Aug 16, 2012 9:47am
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by
stk_skr on Aug 16, 2012 10:33am
"basically proven that the process does not work" Is that what the GEA report indicated?
Comment by
schor on Aug 16, 2012 10:44am
Perhaps I should have said proven to not be economical.The process works but costs too much. Schor
Comment by
prairiebreeze on Aug 16, 2012 12:27pm
Shorting this stock is pointless. Especially when companies like RIM and FB are much better shorts.
Comment by
DrAudit on Aug 16, 2012 12:33pm
"and economic feasibility" This is what I cannot understand - why has the company not been snapped up and why is it not trading at $3? Is there any reason not to accept GEA's report? Are there any qualifiers in it?