debated about even responding .. because imo baby
Post# of 43066
Posted On: 06/20/2016 11:05:37 AM
Re: Commando911 #32740
debated about even responding .. because imo baby is getting mixed into bath water
the tech is clearly disruptive .. and what P2O's founder created from table top
to flagship (2009 - 2013) is downright stunning time wise when one considers
the stock (PTOI) was under attack after the crew working IHUB illegally
manipulated it up in Dec 2009 .. on *volume* that is now statistically irrelevant
that then *morphed* to another level entirely (overlapping CEs) and the
events of 2011/2012
when P2O was wrested back .. i strongly suspect there were options on offer
we saw the CEO infuse $Millions that went to golden pkgs for priors and
cleanup to FILTH provided by FILTH .. and a decision to have P2O's tech
be *marketed* by external factors (ECO) not internal
that first round of money infused was @ the EO the 3rd Q (2013) PPS closed
@ 35c .. it's disingenuous imo to note that takedown .. ignoring all the cycles
in place since 2009 .. the last *illegally manipulated RUN UP* on PTOI was
Jan 2013 .. stopped out @ $1.49 (CEs' dilemma then was 1.50 - 1.65)
the only *goal* CEs' have had is to part legit shares from actual P2O investors and there are only a few ways that comes to pass .. RUN the stock UP
or compress down first to sub 25c .. then sub 10c .. then sub 5c .. then sub 1c
so did P2O's mgmt make poor choices by going with OBG and ECO?
each actual investor has to make that determination for themselves
I understand why the choice was made .. and why ECO's agreement wasn't *renewed*
I can't fault RH for trying something .. that doesn't work out .. what I can fault
RH for is setting measurable milestones and then not communicating with
actual shareholders in a timely fashion .. as we've discussed previously
while P2O (due to founder's tech) is a potential blue chip in the making .. clearly currently it isn't anywhere near that (i.e. relying on filings only)
and consistent regular communication (vs rumors) is vital for all actual investors
the NSS is a totally separate issue and will with P2O's ability to execute
be totally visible (via volume) to all with interest .. just like GEVO's was
and why GEVO has once again (and called by me in RT) triggered reg sho
what I find frustrating is P2O's mgmt *imo* has multiple options in play
but if one thinks one dimensionally (not saying RH does) one tends to have
tunnel vision
as i've noted b4 .. my patience isn't unlimited .. RH noted on 3.8.16 .. very
specific aspects that have yet to be implemented .. it isn't unreasonable to
have *one* aspect of March's Update implemented .. that imo can
and should come at any time .. if P2O files 2nd Q (no NT please) in mid Aug
without an update .. then i suspect opportunities on offer to *reset PTOI via
new round of compressions .. will be on tap
i would hope mgmt's *awareness* of YOY %s specific to timing of what PTOI
closed at .. *exists* ..
P2O has the technology .. what P2O needs is the foundation for that tech to be marketed
if the route is *internal* vs external (and no one says a combo can't work either)
there are plenty of options on offer for mgmt .. thinking outside of the obvious box is a first start .. imo
4kids
the tech is clearly disruptive .. and what P2O's founder created from table top
to flagship (2009 - 2013) is downright stunning time wise when one considers
the stock (PTOI) was under attack after the crew working IHUB illegally
manipulated it up in Dec 2009 .. on *volume* that is now statistically irrelevant
that then *morphed* to another level entirely (overlapping CEs) and the
events of 2011/2012
when P2O was wrested back .. i strongly suspect there were options on offer
we saw the CEO infuse $Millions that went to golden pkgs for priors and
cleanup to FILTH provided by FILTH .. and a decision to have P2O's tech
be *marketed* by external factors (ECO) not internal
that first round of money infused was @ the EO the 3rd Q (2013) PPS closed
@ 35c .. it's disingenuous imo to note that takedown .. ignoring all the cycles
in place since 2009 .. the last *illegally manipulated RUN UP* on PTOI was
Jan 2013 .. stopped out @ $1.49 (CEs' dilemma then was 1.50 - 1.65)
the only *goal* CEs' have had is to part legit shares from actual P2O investors and there are only a few ways that comes to pass .. RUN the stock UP
or compress down first to sub 25c .. then sub 10c .. then sub 5c .. then sub 1c
so did P2O's mgmt make poor choices by going with OBG and ECO?
each actual investor has to make that determination for themselves
I understand why the choice was made .. and why ECO's agreement wasn't *renewed*
I can't fault RH for trying something .. that doesn't work out .. what I can fault
RH for is setting measurable milestones and then not communicating with
actual shareholders in a timely fashion .. as we've discussed previously
while P2O (due to founder's tech) is a potential blue chip in the making .. clearly currently it isn't anywhere near that (i.e. relying on filings only)
and consistent regular communication (vs rumors) is vital for all actual investors
the NSS is a totally separate issue and will with P2O's ability to execute
be totally visible (via volume) to all with interest .. just like GEVO's was
and why GEVO has once again (and called by me in RT) triggered reg sho
what I find frustrating is P2O's mgmt *imo* has multiple options in play
but if one thinks one dimensionally (not saying RH does) one tends to have
tunnel vision
as i've noted b4 .. my patience isn't unlimited .. RH noted on 3.8.16 .. very
specific aspects that have yet to be implemented .. it isn't unreasonable to
have *one* aspect of March's Update implemented .. that imo can
and should come at any time .. if P2O files 2nd Q (no NT please) in mid Aug
without an update .. then i suspect opportunities on offer to *reset PTOI via
new round of compressions .. will be on tap
i would hope mgmt's *awareness* of YOY %s specific to timing of what PTOI
closed at .. *exists* ..
P2O has the technology .. what P2O needs is the foundation for that tech to be marketed
if the route is *internal* vs external (and no one says a combo can't work either)
there are plenty of options on offer for mgmt .. thinking outside of the obvious box is a first start .. imo
4kids
(3)
(0)