Dave, how is the DNDNQ investment working out for you? Oh, that's right. You lost all of your money.
Hitting the crack pipe hard tonight, aren't we? Are you trying to out do Billy on the delusional meter? You mind as well claim that Google is buying BLIAQ for $100,000 a share. It would be as truthful as the garbage you just posted.
Yet you keep feeling compelled to reply to just about EVERY post that I make. Not surprising, coming from a NOP like you.
Oh, please tell us what my motives are. You keep repeating your paid basher line, but you can never actually explain why someone would be paid to bash a no longer existent stock. Come on now, stop taking bong hits and try to form a coherent thought.
It is amazing that you crack heads can't even keep your stories straight. First I'm a paid basher, then I was a COBOL programmer, and then Linux Administrator. Maybe this explains why you ignored repeated warnings from the company that they were going bankrupt and that your stock would be worthless. Maybe by the time you graduate high school you'll be a better investor.
The fact that you think someone is being paid to "bash" a dead stock shows just how low your IQ is. The fact that you think I am bashing the stock further reinforces the fact. Maybe English isn't your first language but the subject of my posts is not the stock. Then again, I wouldn't expect much more from the likes of you. I'm sure you'll still be here a year from now asking "what about the NOLs????". This must be a support group for the terminally stupid.
wmic, with incredible insight like this it is shocking that you lost all of your money. Let see, a late stage prostate cancer treatment that costs $100,000 and has a hundred patients or so versus a mass marketed drug that has a few billion women as potential customers. You're right, these are nearly the same... if I pretended to have zero comprehension skills.
Lindsay Jones, when a bank forecloses on a home and sells it at auction, do you think the new owner is responsible for paying back any loss to the previous home owner? Think real hard Lindsay, then go read the rules regarding 363 sales.
You're right Mr. Week Old ID. I'm sure if the news had been the opposite then you also would have also been claiming victory. After all, all news is great news for BLIAQ longs. I'm also sure that after coughing up an extra billion or two, Charlie is just going to hand over 51% of that spectrum to true BLIAQ longs. After all, he is apparently a complete idiot and is willing to lose billions in order to utilize a 150 million or so in NOLs. Isn't that correct Jerry?
Are you #$%$ dense? It tells you what day that web page was scanned. Here is a little clue. Google keeps every single page it ever scans. Ever hear of a little thing called the "right to be forgotten" law that is being pushed in the EU? There is a reason for that. You can update your website every day with complete new information, but Google keeps track off all of those changes. So if you search on XYZ and your page had a reference to XYX five years ago Google will display it as a hit. Of course you probably already know this, but you're playing dumb to keep your scam going. Keep posting buddy, maybe you can make 10% on your penny stock on Monday.
BTW, the fact that you referenced your "professor" and Wikipedia tells us all we need to know.
Fred, apparently Alpha Bay and Dish are both misinformed. It takes a brilliant intellect like Bill Strouss to see through all of this confusion. Wikipedia says that BLIAQ and Blockbuster LLC are the same thing, so that is all that needs to be known. Forget all of that pesky legal paperwork, press releases, and direct statements from the companies in question. What do they know. Bill is the sharpest TOOL in the shed.
Taz, do you understand the concept of liquidation and the purpose of the trustee? Judging by posts like this it is apparent that you either don't have a clue, or you are just a pathological liar.
Is this really hard for you? When you do the search Google will show you what hits in its cache. It will show you the snippet where the hit occurred. That is what you see. When you click on the link you see the real page. Unless you're special like BIll, you're not seeing that BLIAQ reference on the actual Bloomberg site. I clicked on it a dozen times, found nothing. I search Bloomberg directly, find ZERO reference to BLIAQ.
Bill, I'm sure you know this, but Google does not actually have people updating websites, especially with information pertaining to defunct shells. So no, it is not a first year intern. It is an algorithm that gets confused when some pump and dump weasel like you updates Wikipedia and puts misleading information on the page. Thanks for playing Bill, hopefully your PO will catch on to your scheming and send you back to the hole you crawled out of.
Bill, it is clear that you are not very bright or a simply a bold faced liar. That "link" doesn't mean anything. Google is only putting that quote up because it is picking up the two keywords from the Wikipedia page, which you likely edited. Google Finance itself is making no such connection. If you edit the Wikipedia page to remove the reference to Blockbuster LLC that little box with the stock quote for BLIAQ will disappear in a few days. The fact that your are still trying to push this as "evidence" is pathetic and a sign of how desperate you are.
That is not the way it works. Google cache multiple variations of the same page. If you click on the link that comes up it tells you that it when that version was captured. As it clearly says here " It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 23, 2015 16:53:06 GMT. " The current version has ZERO references to BLIAQ or BB Liquidating. It doesn't even reference Blockbuster LLC. Also, google doesn't Index they way you think it does. It isn't using IDMS or DB/2.
Wow, in a few short days Bill has taking the BLIAQ long idiocy to new heights, or should I say lows. All day babbling about how "Google Finance" is linking BLIAQ to Blockbuster LLC, then when he spits out his "source" it is a link back to the Wikipedia page for "Blockbuster LLC" which is conveniently updated to reference BB Liquidating and BLIAQ. What an amazing coincidence. As we all know, Wikipedia is a pillar of truth and can no way be manipulated by less than scrupulous individuals. I'm sure it is all just an honest mistake.
Dude, are you ****ing mental? That link comes from Wikipedia. You're probably the one the updated it. My god, how are you a functioning adult? Do you need 24x7 care?
Blockbuster LLC, also known as Blockbuster and formerly Blockbuster Video Entertainment, Inc., was an American-based provider of home movie and video game rental services through video rental shops, ... Wikipedia
Stock price: BLIAQ (OTCMKTS) $0.01 0.00 (-11.96%)"