% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The GEO Group, Inc. Message Board

long_or_short_of_it 16138 posts  |  Last Activity: Feb 3, 2009 1:31 PM Member since: Jul 23, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • long_or_short_of_it by long_or_short_of_it Feb 3, 2009 1:31 PM Flag

    Just in case you still don't believe your lying eyes.

  • long_or_short_of_it by long_or_short_of_it Nov 1, 2007 12:20 PM Flag

    The well heeled folk are beginning to understand RNAi a little bit. They are trying to cover but having a rough go of it. The blog piece on Dicerna certainly helped them.


  • Reply to

    the current 10Q..

    by stanedel May 10, 2007 9:47 AM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it May 13, 2007 10:06 PM Flag

    A $150,000 "secured" promissory note doesn't exactly sound like anything more than some little incestuous activity with a Licensee, more or less their standard MO.

    They are longwinded about suggestive interest regarding one of the largest automakers "in the world", but silent on details about how much revenue they have already recognized from this Licensee, which to my mind is certainly more important to the average shareholder and something they have a right to have disclosed as RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS.

    Sooner or later this is going to bite them in the ass.

  • Reply to

    trillions of lines in the SAND

    by B_IN_K Feb 11, 2007 2:38 PM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Feb 11, 2007 7:14 PM Flag

    The TOP is now on!

    bink has spoken! Check his history!


  • long_or_short_of_it by long_or_short_of_it Feb 11, 2007 7:10 PM Flag

    Did you know Raytheon signed a definitive agreement to sell the division in December?

    Hold that thought closely while you try to get this to 15.

    I can hardly wait for the AM.

  • Reply to

    NSTK will see $40+ in 3-6 months

    by yellowduclo Nov 9, 2006 9:43 AM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Nov 12, 2006 8:54 PM Flag

    Joe, you ought to do some research on chlorobutanol. It is a widely used preservative with no record of ever having the kind of theoretical interaction the FDA "appears" to have used to deny the approval. Nastech believes they have put to rest this red herring. With the Democrats now in control of both houses of Congress, I expect the FDA will pick up the pace in the area of generics and this is not going to hurt Nastech.

    Describing Calcitonin as a hiccup imo is simply an error. The FDA had plenty of time to raise the chlorobutanol issue. Indeed, I beleive it is the view of the company they FDA should have rejected the filing on the basis of their alleged concerns and not taken more than 2.5 years to come out with their issue.

    Regarding you statement "MRK had a relationship with NSTK regarding PYY.", I would debate you on that one. What Merck had was a relationship with an individual who at one time ran their R&D and was a Dr. Quay mentor. It is my belief Merck used this relationship to sway the company into a partnership they never intended to advance. You can only burn a bridge once and Merck burned this one badly, in my opinion.

    As to Merck and RNAi, Merck already thought they had a bead on the science through their ALNY alliance and my sense is they never considered Nastech's approach, particularly as they played out their PYY strategy. Nastech also has said from day one they were not interested in any broad alliance, but on individual programs. This really didn't fit Merck's approach, as you saw with Sirna. So, how you can conclude as you did appears wrong headed as well, particularly the suggestion that the programs in the field in RNAi are like bread in a store. And to think that any company, ever Merck, would be granted access to Nastech's other programs is simply preposterous. It has been tried by others without success and to think it could have been tried by Merck is laughable.

    The science is still in its early days and I snicker every time I see someone declare who is "the leader" in the field.

    Finally, let me say I think Yahoo Finance S*U*C*K*S and best left to the morons who are not intelligent enough to discuss matters at Investor Village.

  • Reply to

    Weekly ratings

    by basherssuckbigtime_specter Sep 1, 2006 3:09 PM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Sep 1, 2006 6:33 PM Flag

    It appears you put your finger on another Yahoo! message board problem.


    You post was funnier than REFR trying to raise money!

  • Reply to

    Bottom of barrel financing

    by CSMultrum Aug 28, 2006 9:21 AM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Aug 30, 2006 7:52 PM Flag

    I have not been paying any attention to this flotsam, but it took them 4 months to obtain 7 months max of cash burn.

    Soon Bob and Joe will be selling pencils on street corners to raise capital at this rate.


  • Reply to

    Short Interest Up 7.6%

    by the_grim_refr Aug 25, 2006 9:11 AM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Aug 26, 2006 8:37 PM Flag

    Speaking of farting in a windstorm, that is what you have been doing since joining this board as it has sucked both time and money from you. I suppose it is a good thing you have an endless supply of both.

    Do you really think the reference to a 25 year old patent merits anything?

  • Reply to

    I would like to know......

    by billiechdwck Aug 16, 2006 1:14 PM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Aug 17, 2006 10:14 PM Flag

    Keen and Malvino will certainly be subject to a lock-up period from the date they end their present offering. Usually this period is 180 days.

    I don't give a crap who buys 100,000 shares, as there are at last count over 13 MILLION outstanding.

    Tell your buddies to try to move the stock with their savvy buys.

    You will be able to outsmart them when they run out of money and this continues to fall, as it is about to.


  • Reply to

    Definition of Quiet Period

    by refrpaw Aug 17, 2006 6:53 PM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Aug 17, 2006 10:01 PM Flag

    You must have missed the fact that REFR failed to even acknowledge within the second quarter 10-Q that the company filed and had declared effective a registration statement for up to two million shares of REFR common stock.

    That is okay, the SEC missed it also.

  • Reply to

    10-Q is Out

    by iotrader20 Aug 10, 2006 5:37 PM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Aug 11, 2006 3:20 PM Flag


    How do you file an S-3 in the period, have it declared EFFECTIVE by the SEC and NOT disclose it?

    Moreover, how do you get away with explicity stating the present model will not require funding until at least the first quarter in 2007 when the company just expended efforts and funds to get a registration of up to 2 million shares and warrants for the purchase of common stock?

    The SEC is not sleeping on the job, they are brain dead!

  • long_or_short_of_it by long_or_short_of_it Aug 9, 2006 9:37 AM Flag

    The suspense is killing me! I hope it is a better read than the last one. Random changes in the allowance for doubtful accounts is just sooooooooooooo played.

  • long_or_short_of_it by long_or_short_of_it Jul 27, 2006 10:35 AM Flag

    a bunch of thieves, naive morons or a combination and the evidence of which is likely to be found in the minutes to the board meetings.

    And you do know who is responsible for maintaining the record for the company, don't you?

    Vic, in a perfect world, you would already be serving your time.

  • Reply to

    6,025,733 july short interest

    by bio_tech_capital Jul 25, 2006 4:06 PM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Jul 25, 2006 7:15 PM Flag

    Somebody has this dog by the scuff of the neck. I don't think they are going to let go anytime soon either.

    My condolences to those who choose to invest with br.

  • Reply to

    OT: STEH

    by thederangedloner Oct 8, 2003 1:23 AM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Jul 15, 2006 8:07 PM Flag

    Harvard, by now you should have realized the parrot was smarter than you.


  • long_or_short_of_it by long_or_short_of_it Jul 15, 2006 5:25 PM Flag

    If Yahoo persists with this exercise, their boards will pay the price.

  • Reply to

    Make an effort

    by endofwar Jul 14, 2006 6:26 PM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Jul 14, 2006 10:18 PM Flag

    The costs to manufacture product is expensed in the financials. From a business perspective however, if they DID manufacture finished product with the expectation of next day availability post approval, the company could still physically possess the actual finished goods that were produced preapproval in the approved manufacturing facilities.

    Any raw materials would be on the balance sheet. I don't know what the return policies on such materials would be, if allowed.

  • Reply to

    Make an effort

    by endofwar Jul 14, 2006 6:26 PM
    long_or_short_of_it long_or_short_of_it Jul 14, 2006 6:36 PM Flag

    Re the "inventory", note any such inventory was expensed as manufactured to the extent done so prior to FDA approval. There is no P&L effect as a result of the denial.

    If they can't find a way to accomodate the FDA within the present filing, that product is more than likely landfill bound.

  • long_or_short_of_it by long_or_short_of_it Jul 14, 2006 4:48 PM Flag

    smaller every passing day.

    I expect HIT/DIC will particiapte in a cut rate financing with the spread between the deal and the market used to buy the necessary props to maintain appearances at no cost to them.

    Of course, offshore short positions will remain unnoticed, except by fools who believe they actually are meaningful.

29.68-0.11(-0.37%)Nov 27 1:02 PMEST