EVE Search - Portsmouth Shipyards Inc. [PSI] IPO

All Channels

Market Discussions

Portsmouth Shipyards Inc. [PSI] IPO

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 .. 19 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kitex Blacktag Test Labs	Posted - 2007.12.02 16:36:00 - [511] Originally by: Wylker How dumb can you possibly be? This, in part, is what separates you from someone I might have voted to stay invested in. Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery!
SiJira	Posted - 2007.12.02 16:38:00 - [512] Originally by: Wylker Looks like the vote is in, and with a little under 25% participation it is in favor of liquidation. So we'll get that going here. wylker dont get discouraged there are many people that would love to invest in you if you come right out with a new ipo right now and a solid business plan - i mean capital ships wont get nerfed again anytime soon ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.12.02 17:33:00 - [513] Originally by: SiJira Originally by: Wylker Looks like the vote is in, and with a little under 25% participation it is in favor of liquidation. So we'll get that going here. wylker dont get discouraged there are many people that would love to invest in you if you come right out with a new ipo right now and a solid business plan - i mean capital ships wont get nerfed again anytime soon I've got a bridge for sale... Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.02 17:50:00 - [514] Originally by: Wylker Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Works fine for me: Liquidate: 61.56% Continue with carriers etc: 10.19% Branch out into new stuff: 28.25% I'm pleased to see that the option I originally voted for has gained more support. I suppose the massive swing towards liquidation is due to Wylker not voting? How dumb can you possibly be? I prefer to think of it as a mix of suspicion, laziness & ignorance as to how the voting system works in equal measures. How would you explain the swing? My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Veronique deEstelle Gallente Advanced Technologies And Research Inc	Posted - 2007.12.04 00:31:00 - [515] Allright, and we know the vote is right this time because...?^^
desmuction	Posted - 2007.12.04 01:00:00 - [516] this is a joke
Havok Pierce Gallente D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.12.04 01:01:00 - [517] Originally by: Ricdic Startling turn of events. Shazbot, Ricdic, you broke my sarcasm detector; I just fixed this thing! Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's a Community petition category??
Nicho Void Hyper-Nova Tenth Legion	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:44:00 - [518] Waiting.
Daeva Vios PhaseShifter Technologies	Posted - 2007.12.07 10:19:00 - [519] Edited by: Daeva Vios on 07/12/2007 10:19:59 I hate to be the one to state the obvious, but you'll likely be waiting a very long time. Write it off and move on, Wylker's a scammer plain and simple. The only sad thing is he doesn't have the balls to come out and say it.
YouGotRipped	Posted - 2007.12.09 03:14:00 - [520] I've peroused the 18 pages of this scam of epic proportions and I would like to point the following to you people: You got ripped. First of all it was absolutely clear that another capital ship building IPO (started when others were backing out) would fail and yet you all invested like sheeps. The only one gaining from this would be the OP because... The Aftermath Alliance developed their capital ship capabilities using your money. Wilker was honest in one thing though: when he said they didn't have the money for it. Yes, they planed the whole thing at the highest level of the alliance yet it is unclear if only the recent turn of events (nerfing) is the cause for scamming. They probably intended to pay dividends from time to time just to keep your mouth shut but nowhere near the 15% promised. Assuming they will give back some, expect 1/10 of the initial investment. As for interest hahah
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.09 03:37:00 - [521] The Capital market isn't exactly dead. It's all about what you do with it. TCCS is capital only and I believe we sunk about a 13% dividend last month. But you are probably right, I have written off my PSI so it's not a big deal. Need Empire Research Slots. Click here
LaVista Vista Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.09 09:17:00 - [522] Edited by: LaVista Vista on 09/12/2007 09:17:49 http://scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?p=304610#304610 I'd write it off by now me thinks. Also, why would this IPO have been spent on Aftermath alliance's capital fleet? Thats pretty darn stupid, since Wylker's corp is no longer in that corp
Ion Halo	Posted - 2007.12.19 18:31:00 - [523] I was hoping this wouldn't happen, but most of us saw it coming. My apologies to anyone who got caught up in this.
Javeir Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.21 03:50:00 - [524] Originally by: YouGotRipped Edited by: YouGotRipped on 09/12/2007 03:32:34 I've peroused the 18 pages of this scam of epic proportions and I would like to point the following to you people: You got ripped. First of all it was absolutely clear that another capital ship building IPO (started when others were backing out) would fail and yet you all invested like sheeps. The only one gaining from this would be the OP because... The Aftermath Alliance developed their capital ship capabilities using your money. Wilker was honest in one thing though: when he said they didn't have the money for it. Yes, they planed the whole thing at the highest level of the alliance yet it is unclear if only the recent turn of events (nerfing) is the cause for scamming. They probably intended to pay dividends from time to time just to keep your mouth shut but nowhere near the 15% promised. Assuming they will give back some, expect 1/10 of the initial investment. As for interest hahah like he said: in space no one can hear you scream. I want to make it very clear that this Scam by Wylker and friends did not in any way go twords the Aftermath Capitals, and the entire Portsmouth crap had nothing to do with Aftermath at all. Many pilots in my corp, including my directors, lost billions investing in this IPO. Please do not hold Aftermath in any way responsible for Wylkers scam. For whatever reason my corp and alliance is not showing up. Howver, I am the CEO of Shadows of the Dead, and Aftermath is my alliance.
LaVista Vista Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.21 08:13:00 - [525] Originally by: Javeir Originally by: YouGotRipped Edited by: YouGotRipped on 09/12/2007 03:32:34 I've peroused the 18 pages of this scam of epic proportions and I would like to point the following to you people: You got ripped. First of all it was absolutely clear that another capital ship building IPO (started when others were backing out) would fail and yet you all invested like sheeps. The only one gaining from this would be the OP because... The Aftermath Alliance developed their capital ship capabilities using your money. Wilker was honest in one thing though: when he said they didn't have the money for it. Yes, they planed the whole thing at the highest level of the alliance yet it is unclear if only the recent turn of events (nerfing) is the cause for scamming. They probably intended to pay dividends from time to time just to keep your mouth shut but nowhere near the 15% promised. Assuming they will give back some, expect 1/10 of the initial investment. As for interest hahah like he said: in space no one can hear you scream. I want to make it very clear that this Scam by Wylker and friends did not in any way go twords the Aftermath Capitals, and the entire Portsmouth crap had nothing to do with Aftermath at all. Many pilots in my corp, including my directors, lost billions investing in this IPO. Please do not hold Aftermath in any way responsible for Wylkers scam. For whatever reason my corp and alliance is not showing up. Howver, I am the CEO of Shadows of the Dead, and Aftermath is my alliance. Your alliance vouched for this dude, dude! Originally by: Aelena Thraant I can vouch that he is a very trusted member of our alliance and OHSHT. Thats the leader of your alliance at the time, vouching for him. This signature is brought to you by EBankÖ, free space for moderators to brag.
Riethe	Posted - 2007.12.21 08:48:00 - [526] Originally by: LaVista Vista Your alliance vouched for this dude, dude! I get the point you're trying to make here, but if the guy isn't lying, they lost out on this too. Yeah, they vouched for him, but if it was under false pretense, can you really say they're responsible? I say this, of course, if you're willing to believe this guy isn't full of bunkum. Chances are they did a big whole thing together and now they're trying to take an easy way out of the whole thing. Who knows. If he isn't lying, though, I really don't think it's all that fair to say he was partially responsible, if he and his alliance got ripped off during this as well. Do your worst.
Benvie Benvie Enterprises	Posted - 2007.12.21 20:15:00 - [527] Begs the question, what value exactly does vouching have anyway? If someone is a scammer, they could have just as easily scammed all those people voiching for him. Or even if they were honest in their prior dealings, 60 billion or whatever number could be enough to turn them. Vouching has always seemed somewhat flimsy to me, and this thing serves as a very good example why.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2007.12.21 20:35:00 - [528] Originally by: Benvie Begs the question, what value exactly does vouching have anyway? If someone is a scammer, they could have just as easily scammed all those people voiching for him. Or even if they were honest in their prior dealings, 60 billion or whatever number could be enough to turn them. Vouching has always seemed somewhat flimsy to me, and this thing serves as a very good example why. I agree with you vouching is pretty flimsy most of the time. The only time it holds any credit with me is if the person doing the vouching is some whom I already trust or respect. No offense to the guys in "Aftermath Alliance". but I didnt know them then and I dont know them now, so their "vouching" means nothing to me. Then there was the vouching by his fellow corp m8's, in "Pyrrhus Sicarii". Whom once agian I dont know at all, so the vouching means nothing to me. In fact for me, vouching from corp m8's who have no prior credabilty or history in MD actually turns the vouching into a negative for me. It just becomes too much like the "secret backers" concept. I think the biggest fail for investors was that they ignored those who in the first page of the thread commented on the then already declining cap ship market. I think at that point it was a matter of the lemming factor once the first few invested. Really people need to think for themselves about what they are about to invest in. Just because you see some one invest does not mean that particular investment is right or worth it for you. --- not sure why I just spent the time to write the above, its not like its going to be read by anyone who would actually benifit from it, hidden this far back at the end of a scam thread. --
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.12.21 20:53:00 - [529] The whole point of vouching for someone is that you are putting your reputation on the line if the other guy scams. You're saying that you trust the person and even though others do not know them well enough to trust them. This is usually done because your reputation is better than the person in questions. The reasoning is that reputation is worth a lot and loss of reputation is a serious anti-scamming method. If someone does not have a reputation to lose then it can be hard to raise capital... thus you get someone to vouch for them. The vouching person is now responsible if it turns into a scam. You shouldn't vouch for someone you don't truly trust, because as soon as you vouch for them it is as much your problem if they scam as it is scammers. It doesn't matter if the vouching person also gets scammed, they were part and parcel to the scam and thus are accessories. Their name has to be dragged through the dirt. If they wish to restore their good name they have to rectify the situation in some way as it was their fault the person was able to scam. If vouching does not work in this way then it is worthless. I personally think people should hold all those who vouched for Wylker responsible and they should be labeled as accessories. We have no way of knowing if they are co-conspirators or not, but they most definitely aided his scamming efforts even if unknowingly. I would highly suggest people think twice before vouching for anyone in the future unless you truly understand the consequences. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Riethe	Posted - 2007.12.21 22:39:00 - [530] I mostly agree with you here Shad, but not entirely. I don't think it's right to go and say, "hey, we got screwed, this guy got screwed, but he told us Wylker was good stuff, so it's his fault too!" I think it's a lot more accurate to say, "Wylker screwed everyone here, and in the future, all the people that vouched for him will not ever influence my decisions again." All of this changes though, the moment that someone finds information that they were accomplices to all this. If they knew this was a scam and put their names up here to assist it, they're all equally accountable. I personally think it's entirely likely that he would show up here and say, "oh, no, guys, we said wylker was the bestest but the troofs is we didn't know." Who wouldn't try to do that to redeem themselves under pressure? So I am of the belief that this was a group activity and that they're just backing down or trying to clear some of their names.
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.22 00:51:00 - [531] When I vouch for someone I do it under the complete expectation that if they screw up, I am left having to clean up the mess. When EBANK takes on a loan customer who has people vouching for it, it is determined in advance that if the loanee screws up, the vouchers will be called on to take control of the debt. I guess that's my definition of the term. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.12.22 01:51:00 - [532] Originally by: Riethe I mostly agree with you here Shad, but not entirely. I don't think it's right to go and say, "hey, we got screwed, this guy got screwed, but he told us Wylker was good stuff, so it's his fault too!" I think it's a lot more accurate to say, "Wylker screwed everyone here, and in the future, all the people that vouched for him will not ever influence my decisions again." All of this changes though, the moment that someone finds information that they were accomplices to all this. If they knew this was a scam and put their names up here to assist it, they're all equally accountable. I personally think it's entirely likely that he would show up here and say, "oh, no, guys, we said wylker was the bestest but the troofs is we didn't know." Who wouldn't try to do that to redeem themselves under pressure? So I am of the belief that this was a group activity and that they're just backing down or trying to clear some of their names. In your use of the word vouching is worthless. Unfortunately your use of the word is not the correct use of the word. Here is the definition: Quote: Verb Vouch - give personal assurance; guarantee; "Will he vouch for me?" A vouch is only worth anything if there is that guarantee behind it. Otherwise it is a hollow point because the voucher obviously doesn't trust the person enough to back them with their own money. That is very important to know. They trust them only as long as no money is on the line. That means nothing and if that is what they truly feel they should say so, if they go on the line and vouch for the person then they damn well better be willing to take the blame if the person turns out to be a scammer/thief. Ricdic explained it well, if you are going to put your name behind someone then you better be ready to stand up for your name otherwise your name means nothing. In this case the people who vouched for him should be called out and held accountable. The only people who can really do this are those who invested and got scammed, if they don't care enough about being scammed then the vouchers may get off the hook. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Ion Halo	Posted - 2007.12.22 04:02:00 - [533] How is it not painfully obvious what 'vouching' means? Let's say for example.... I am a manager at a bank and I vouch to my district supervisor that a certain teller is an extremely trustworthy guy and deserves a promotion ( complete with keys, codes, etc), then he turns around and rips the place off, WHO IS LEFT TO BEAR THE BURDEN? Me. He's long gone. And I would hope to keep my job much less look for promotions within the same company. In this case, the people that vouched for Wylker would definately not deserve credibility themselves.... not for a while. It was painfully obvious from page 3 in this thread that this 'laid back, fun loving guy' should not be trusted with any of your money. Maybe this will have people think twice about vouching for people. It's a serious thing regardless of capacity. "Yeah, he's a great guy. You should get involved with him! Totally trustworthy, I'd let him watch my kids! What's that you say? He stole money from you? Not my fault, moron."
Riethe	Posted - 2007.12.22 07:20:00 - [534] Edited by: Riethe on 22/12/2007 07:19:51 Look. If you let your neighbor babysit your daughter based on a reference from someone who wasn't aware your neighbor was a pedophile, you're going to be filing a lawsuit against the person who put your daughter in the ice chest. Not the person who thought they were trustworthy. You just don't listen to the person who referenced them in the future. Just because they thought they knew a person doesn't make them an accessory to murder. Or maybe you can start doing your own research and not rely on other people to tell you what to do because you're mostly lemmings that do whatever Ricdic does. But if it makes you feel better about it all, blame everyone--because misdirecting your frustrations is definitely the way to handle situations like big kids.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.12.22 07:50:00 - [535] You seem to have a problem accepting that words have definitions and meanings. If you vouch for someone you are guaranteeing they are not a scammer. If they turn a scammer you are the one left to pick up the pieces and make things right because you took that responsibility onto yourself. No one forced these people to vouch, they did it on their own and they should realize there are consequences for doing so. Vouching has a meaning and a purpose. Just because you don't believe in accountability doesn't mean others don't. You don't value your reputation, thus you sold it for 40 billion. Others value their reputation more than you do, so it may be a bit hard for you to understand the importance of vouching. But it only has value if people hold those who vouch for scammers responsible. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Riethe	Posted - 2007.12.22 08:12:00 - [536] Actually, this has nothing to do with my reputation/accountability. You know as well as I do that Riethe is just a fantasy character created to serve one purpose: generate ISK. So my reputation is perfectly fine, actually. It's not a matter of accountability. If EVERY TIME someone said something that ended up not being true was illegal or punishable, we'd all be in a hell of a lot of trouble right now. Find me an example where someone was punished for something like this, in, preferably, a civilized justice system. Let's try this: I just went to the barber, got an amazing haircut! It was incredibly cheap and the guy was very friendly! I highly suggest you go when you need a haircut! 3 months later. You take me up on that advice. You get there, seems alright. The person giving you a haircut has an attitude, does a horrible job, and charges you way more than you expected. You come back to me and say, "HEY! RIETHE! LOOK AT MY HAIR! THAT BARBER SUCKED" and I say, "what happened? Did you go to the place I said?" and you're just like, "yeah, I did, and look what happened!" Well it turns out, the barber that cut my hair wasn't even working there anymore, and it was a completely different guy. And I should make it up to you? This is my fault? How was I supposed to know it was going to be owned by a different barber by the time you got around to your haircut? Wylker convinced a bunch of people he was a rad dude, and then quit being a barber. Simple as that.
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.22 10:52:00 - [537] Originally by: Riethe If you let your neighbor babysit your daughter based on a reference from someone who wasn't aware your neighbor was a pedophile, you're going to be filing a lawsuit against the person who put your daughter in the ice chest. Well there are 2 pretty clear comparisons. Character Reference - Some posted them here, I showed them as such. Based on their experience with the character they posted their dealings. Vouch - A person who commits to being responsible for the person's actions. EBANK works in the same fashion. We take a character reference as a partial security on a loan but put more trust into someone vouching for the other. Obviously in both cases it is irrelevant if the person vouching isn't to be trusted (same deal with the character reference). In the EBANK example. If someone vouches for someone else, and that person defaults, and the 'voucher' doesn't follow through on repaying the debt, we blacklist both. If someone gives a character reference for another and the person falls through we write off the loss and blacklist the loanee, whilst we may lower our trust in the character reference (but we won't blacklist them). Same deal with a judge in criminal law. If you post as a character reference you are doing nothing more than swearing that all your dealings with the person have been successful. If you are posting bail for someone you are promising the judge that you will not get your bail back if the person skips town. So you are holding yourself responsible in some form. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.22 11:06:00 - [538] I have started a new thread on this topic to discuss it away from this already enlarged thread. You can have a look here and give your opinions, beliefs etc etc Cheers http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Shaki'h Brighthead Amarr Tagazok Corporation	Posted - 2007.12.26 20:43:00 - [539] So, what's going on? Can we hope our shares will be bought back? I bought 80 shares... but since I've been waiting for too long, I'm willing to sell them... Anyone interested? Thanks!
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.12.26 20:49:00 - [540] Originally by: Shaki'h Brighthead So, what's going on? Can we hope our shares will be bought back? I bought 80 shares... but since I've been waiting for too long, I'm willing to sell them... Anyone interested? Thanks! Reading the thread is generally a smart thing to do before posting. This is a scam. You won't get a penny for them. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 .. 19 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.