I'd say a better idea would be if nobody buys shares. It would make it sound like that nobody supports the chip being implemented. Or here's a
better idea. Blow up the factory of where it's getting produced.
Is Your Government Stalking You? Stalk Them Back Via Verichip Purchasing..., page 2
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 06:50 PM by SpartanKingLeonidas
Originally posted by jaamaan
Well i think by buying stock in verichip you are actualy helping them to develop their compagny better.
You are supporting them and their technology.
With this logic i should invest in cluster bomb factories to stop them making clusterbombs.
The more moneyy you give them the more power they have, simple as that.
I realy hope i am not the only on seeing this.
They've got Government grants and black slush funds for that. This chipping will be implemented by 2020, whether you're on board with it or not.
TinWiki - 2020 Neural Implant Chip
jaamaan, you sound similar to a lemming right here. Instead of trying to influence the change into the position of power, you'd rather run mindlessly off the cliff with the others.
[edit on 25-6-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 07:28 PM by RRconservative
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by RRconservative
Right, and I think you're an instigator. Move along please. I'll make money whethere ATS'ers purchase the stock or not.
Do not accuse Me of something like that again.
I guess people that disagree with you are instigators? You like Verichip because youv'e obviously invested some money in them. Spreading the word about them, getting others to buy stock, makes the stock go higher. You benefit. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I disagree with Verichips claim to be impervious to the government, in fact they may even be working with the government.
I believe I am doing members of ATS a great service by at least giving them a chance to do some research before they blow some money on a companies stock that may be worthless in the next few years.
Have you ever thought of why their stock is only trading around a buck fifty right now?
[edit on 25-6-2008 by RRconservative]
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 07:53 PM by disgustedbyhumanity
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
Only lemming here is SpartanKing and anyone who listens to him. Verichip has already agreed to sell 99% of their company to Stanley Works for what will be between $1.25 and $1.35 per share for shareholders. They are in the process of selling their health link business. Healthlink represents 1% of their previous revenues and 19% of their expenses so its value is very questionable.
So basically anyone buying this stock is betting that the healthlink business, which only loses money is worth more than $.35 to $.45 per share. anything less and you end up losing money investing in two companies which have been bought out.
Don't put your money into this.
Verichip Proxy Statement
Only lemming here is SpartanKing and anyone who listens to him. Verichip has already agreed to sell 99% of their company to Stanley Works for what will be between $1.25 and $1.35 per share for shareholders. They are in the process of selling their health link business. Healthlink represents 1% of their previous revenues and 19% of their expenses so its value is very questionable.
So basically anyone buying this stock is betting that the healthlink business, which only loses money is worth more than $.35 to $.45 per share. anything less and you end up losing money investing in two companies which have been bought out.
Don't put your money into this.
Verichip Proxy Statement
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 08:38 PM by Justin Oldham
I got an invite to to say a few words, so here goes.
The asnwer is "no." Civic conspiracy only works when lots of people can harness their efforts. the individual stockholder is only effective IF he or she can own enough stock to represent a major interest. A thousand people each owning one share will get no where. One person owning a thousand shares will get further.
How do you make this concept work? Simple. Create a conspiracy to fight a conspiracy. This was one of the very first thins I wrote about on ATS. In this case, your conspirators would pool their money to start a lawful business, which would then move to buy enough shares of Verichip to initiate a takeover. Buy the company, take control of its patented assets, and then...shut it down.
There's obviously more to this, but T&C's prevent me from saying it.
Can a well-meaning person, taking such small ownership upon themselves, effect a significant change?
The asnwer is "no." Civic conspiracy only works when lots of people can harness their efforts. the individual stockholder is only effective IF he or she can own enough stock to represent a major interest. A thousand people each owning one share will get no where. One person owning a thousand shares will get further.
How do you make this concept work? Simple. Create a conspiracy to fight a conspiracy. This was one of the very first thins I wrote about on ATS. In this case, your conspirators would pool their money to start a lawful business, which would then move to buy enough shares of Verichip to initiate a takeover. Buy the company, take control of its patented assets, and then...shut it down.
There's obviously more to this, but T&C's prevent me from saying it.
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 09:02 PM by Ian McLean
reply to post by Justin Oldham
That sounds a lot like "Disaster Capitalism" *, turned on the capitalist market itself. The premise being that certain companies are set up to benefit from disasters (such as wars, famine, etc), and also from 'sweeping up the pieces' left in the disaster's wake. Their incentive is to encourage such disasters, profit from them, and in turn invest a portion of those proceeds as 'seed money', positioning for the next disaster, and repeat the cycle.
For example a competitor company could stack the board of a target company and cause extra expense, unbenificial licensing deals, bad decisions, etc, from which they profit, leading the company into a downward spiral. Then, when the stock is low enough, a buyout would recover any obligations, and adsorb the remaining assets.
That's obviously one of the reasons there's independent fiduciary oversight, SEC, of all publicly traded companies.
That sounds a lot like "Disaster Capitalism" *, turned on the capitalist market itself. The premise being that certain companies are set up to benefit from disasters (such as wars, famine, etc), and also from 'sweeping up the pieces' left in the disaster's wake. Their incentive is to encourage such disasters, profit from them, and in turn invest a portion of those proceeds as 'seed money', positioning for the next disaster, and repeat the cycle.
For example a competitor company could stack the board of a target company and cause extra expense, unbenificial licensing deals, bad decisions, etc, from which they profit, leading the company into a downward spiral. Then, when the stock is low enough, a buyout would recover any obligations, and adsorb the remaining assets.
That's obviously one of the reasons there's independent fiduciary oversight, SEC, of all publicly traded companies.
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 09:16 PM by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by RRconservative
No, I do not feel that everyone specifically who disagrees with the point of view I've expressed is an instigator, just you because you've replied that I would try to profit via the Bilderberg Group's motives, while I have only the voting power in mind to stop them as the only reason to do this.
reply to post by Terran Blue
Terran Blue, thank you for understanding what I am trying to say here. It's a 100% legal way to wrest control from the company, IF people chose to do so.
reply to post by Shrukin89
While I agree with your comment about not supporting being chipped, as I am vehemenantly opposed to something like that, I can not agree with nor condone blowing up the building for multiple reasons.
1) Who knows who might be killed in the process? It would be considered a terrorist action as well.
2) They probably manufacture these devices in some Thirld World country that the President will only try to "liberate" later anyway.
reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity
I do not think you know the definition of a lemming, let alone it being a mass panic decision I was alluding to.
1) Mass panic - Going to go get your guns, whick will only metaphorically let alone literally give the Government realistic reasons to kill you. Giving them legitimate ammunition as it were to do what they want to do anyway.
2) Mindless rage - To attack because of sheer blind unintelligent thinking.
reply to post by LongTimeLurker
That is a completely thought provoking and interesting option you have there. I am not condoning it at this moment, but at least it's not something silly like blowing the buidling up, or picking up a gun.
reply to post by Justin Oldham
JO, thanks for dropping in to say a few intelligent words. I appreciate that.
While, yes, what JO says would be in violation of T & C in conspiring to act together in conjunction, I am not advocating that either here.
What I am stating, is in fact, instead of picking up a weapon, instead of screaming revolution and instigating the Government into going into a policy of sending in organized Law Enforcement to storm some building you are in, instead to intelligently think about healthy alternatives here.
If you have voting rights in the company, and they are voting on to give Government more control over it, you can veto that option, thereby negating that action. It's your choice.
If you have voting rights in the company, and they are voting on to give the company to North Korea through Kim Jong Ill purchasing it, you can veto that option as well. It's your choice.
The list goes on and one here. I think you might get the point.
[edit on 25-6-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]
No, I do not feel that everyone specifically who disagrees with the point of view I've expressed is an instigator, just you because you've replied that I would try to profit via the Bilderberg Group's motives, while I have only the voting power in mind to stop them as the only reason to do this.
reply to post by Terran Blue
Terran Blue, thank you for understanding what I am trying to say here. It's a 100% legal way to wrest control from the company, IF people chose to do so.
reply to post by Shrukin89
While I agree with your comment about not supporting being chipped, as I am vehemenantly opposed to something like that, I can not agree with nor condone blowing up the building for multiple reasons.
1) Who knows who might be killed in the process? It would be considered a terrorist action as well.
2) They probably manufacture these devices in some Thirld World country that the President will only try to "liberate" later anyway.
reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity
I do not think you know the definition of a lemming, let alone it being a mass panic decision I was alluding to.
1) Mass panic - Going to go get your guns, whick will only metaphorically let alone literally give the Government realistic reasons to kill you. Giving them legitimate ammunition as it were to do what they want to do anyway.
2) Mindless rage - To attack because of sheer blind unintelligent thinking.
reply to post by LongTimeLurker
That is a completely thought provoking and interesting option you have there. I am not condoning it at this moment, but at least it's not something silly like blowing the buidling up, or picking up a gun.
reply to post by Justin Oldham
JO, thanks for dropping in to say a few intelligent words. I appreciate that.
While, yes, what JO says would be in violation of T & C in conspiring to act together in conjunction, I am not advocating that either here.
What I am stating, is in fact, instead of picking up a weapon, instead of screaming revolution and instigating the Government into going into a policy of sending in organized Law Enforcement to storm some building you are in, instead to intelligently think about healthy alternatives here.
If you have voting rights in the company, and they are voting on to give Government more control over it, you can veto that option, thereby negating that action. It's your choice.
If you have voting rights in the company, and they are voting on to give the company to North Korea through Kim Jong Ill purchasing it, you can veto that option as well. It's your choice.
The list goes on and one here. I think you might get the point.
I am not encouraging anyone to be stupid here and make an idiotic choice via actually stalking someone.
[edit on 25-6-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 09:57 PM by disgustedbyhumanity
{quote}
reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity
I do not think you know the definition of a lemming, let alone it being a mass panic decision I was alluding to.
1) Mass panic - Going to go get your guns, whick will only metaphorically let alone literally give the Government realistic reasons to kill you. Giving them legitimate ammunition as it were to do what they want to do anyway.
2) Mindless rage - To attack because of sheer blind unintelligent thinking.
My definition of a lemming is someone who takes a risk with very little chance of having a positive result. Especially, in the case, when the only prfitable portion of the company in question is already sold for a lower price then the current trading price.
I posted this on another thread of yours, but you just seem to ignore it and continuing to pump this stock. As for having any say, the majority of this company's shares have already committed to this deal and there is nothing you could do even if you held all the rest of the shares.
Maybe you should look at SWK instead as they are the acquirers.
reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity
I do not think you know the definition of a lemming, let alone it being a mass panic decision I was alluding to.
1) Mass panic - Going to go get your guns, whick will only metaphorically let alone literally give the Government realistic reasons to kill you. Giving them legitimate ammunition as it were to do what they want to do anyway.
2) Mindless rage - To attack because of sheer blind unintelligent thinking.
My definition of a lemming is someone who takes a risk with very little chance of having a positive result. Especially, in the case, when the only prfitable portion of the company in question is already sold for a lower price then the current trading price.
I posted this on another thread of yours, but you just seem to ignore it and continuing to pump this stock. As for having any say, the majority of this company's shares have already committed to this deal and there is nothing you could do even if you held all the rest of the shares.
Maybe you should look at SWK instead as they are the acquirers.
The number 13: The Power behind it. How to Protect yourself in this spiritual war..
Posted 13 days ago with 22 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 22 member flags
Triptych Doorway, Key to the Sacred Science Spirituality of the Mother Civilization
Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Planck Space Data Yields Evidence of Universes Beyond Our Own
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Disabled killer whale survives with the help of family who hunt for its food...
Fragile Earth: 16 hours ago, 16 flags
Fragile Earth: 16 hours ago, 16 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
6 Reasons Why Obama’s Popularity Is Likely to Plummet; The politics of hope & the politics of nope
US Political Madness: 14 hours ago, 66 replies
US Political Madness: 14 hours ago, 66 replies
Planck Space Data Yields Evidence of Universes Beyond Our Own
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 28 replies
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 28 replies
18-year-old’s breakthrough invention can recharge phones in seconds
Science & Technology: 10 hours ago, 26 replies
Science & Technology: 10 hours ago, 26 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.178 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.178 seconds
