One needs to know about posters and their backgrou
Post# of 848
Posted On: 01/22/2015 2:13:45 PM
One needs to know about posters and their backgrounds and motives in order to know what to believe and what not to believe that is posted on these boards. In that spirit of DD I offer the following deleted post from Ihub:
Posted by: ORyoucan
In reply to: candia who wrote msg# 33010 Date:1/22/2015 1:02:53 PM
Post #33028 of 33038
I intend to later today. But if I do and relay the same message that EcoMike has, will you recant and admit that there are two projects and that the ERC pilot at Lafarge is not extensively delayed as you suggest? I highly doubt it.
The point of having *YOU* call is that *YOU* are the one who interpreted the agreement as having only *one* pilot plant, and that this project was now delayed per the recent 10Q. And then you went after eiddie and EcoMike for daring to disagree and then posted all over this message board that Mantra is apparently significantly delayed. But now that EcoMike has confirmed that *he* called Manta, maybe it would make sense for you to do the same so *YOU* could confirm first hand so you are then able to admit that your interepretation was incorrect. That would have been the gentlemanly and honorable thing to do here.
But instead you reply with some bush league school-yard taunt of "why don't you call." OK, man. Will do. But the point is that *YOU* apparently need to be convinced and *YOU* apparently don't believe people like EcoMike who confirm a reading of the agreement that is different than you. So why would you believe me if I got that information from Mantra? That was the point of suggesting that *YOU* call.
You often try to play the part of the "concerned investor, just raising issues," but my guess is that you and JunkHustler would prefer to sit back and throw up mud rather than actually doing something productive to try to provide clarity on actual progress made or not made. So, since you responded so flippantly after I scoped the question out for you in a way that would allow you to easily resolve the issue that *YOU* raised as a concern (and then badgered others who dare disagree with your interpretation), you've lost all credibilty with me. You're either a paid shill or just a random internet jerk who likes to troll people on public message boards. Either way, I'm not sure why any of us should listen to a word you say.
It's kind of a joke to come here day in and day out and seeing you and JunkHustler just troll people all day. Guess what? 99% of the people invested in Manta know that it's an OTC! That OTC is not terribly liquid! That this is a high risk investment and that, for all its technological promise, it will be essentially worth nothing if they cannot commercialize the ERC/MFRC! That they are low on cash because they are a young venture attempting to convince deep pockets to put up a decent amount of capital to bring these products into the commercial marketplace!
This isn't Cisco or Apple. And no one here thinks it is. Get on the level, dude. Start posting legitimate critiques or concerns or go find another stock board to troll.
Posted by: ORyoucan
In reply to: candia who wrote msg# 33010 Date:1/22/2015 1:02:53 PM
Post #33028 of 33038
I intend to later today. But if I do and relay the same message that EcoMike has, will you recant and admit that there are two projects and that the ERC pilot at Lafarge is not extensively delayed as you suggest? I highly doubt it.
The point of having *YOU* call is that *YOU* are the one who interpreted the agreement as having only *one* pilot plant, and that this project was now delayed per the recent 10Q. And then you went after eiddie and EcoMike for daring to disagree and then posted all over this message board that Mantra is apparently significantly delayed. But now that EcoMike has confirmed that *he* called Manta, maybe it would make sense for you to do the same so *YOU* could confirm first hand so you are then able to admit that your interepretation was incorrect. That would have been the gentlemanly and honorable thing to do here.
But instead you reply with some bush league school-yard taunt of "why don't you call." OK, man. Will do. But the point is that *YOU* apparently need to be convinced and *YOU* apparently don't believe people like EcoMike who confirm a reading of the agreement that is different than you. So why would you believe me if I got that information from Mantra? That was the point of suggesting that *YOU* call.
You often try to play the part of the "concerned investor, just raising issues," but my guess is that you and JunkHustler would prefer to sit back and throw up mud rather than actually doing something productive to try to provide clarity on actual progress made or not made. So, since you responded so flippantly after I scoped the question out for you in a way that would allow you to easily resolve the issue that *YOU* raised as a concern (and then badgered others who dare disagree with your interpretation), you've lost all credibilty with me. You're either a paid shill or just a random internet jerk who likes to troll people on public message boards. Either way, I'm not sure why any of us should listen to a word you say.
It's kind of a joke to come here day in and day out and seeing you and JunkHustler just troll people all day. Guess what? 99% of the people invested in Manta know that it's an OTC! That OTC is not terribly liquid! That this is a high risk investment and that, for all its technological promise, it will be essentially worth nothing if they cannot commercialize the ERC/MFRC! That they are low on cash because they are a young venture attempting to convince deep pockets to put up a decent amount of capital to bring these products into the commercial marketplace!
This isn't Cisco or Apple. And no one here thinks it is. Get on the level, dude. Start posting legitimate critiques or concerns or go find another stock board to troll.
(0)
(0)