Saturday, May 12, 2007

Hot Topics For Today: Financials and Banning

Steorn was active today in the thread Sean can u clarify the financials? over in Steorn's forum. Steorn starts off by repeating their position:

There has been no new investment since August, I said this yesterday and for the past six months. Its that simple.
nleseul asks:
So is that new CRO document just reporting various transactions that happened during the first part of 2006, as crank is suggesting?
And Steorn replies:
Yep, this whole thing is what happens when you have a cynic trying to check accounts with no knowledge at all of what he is talking about - lol, its in a long list of errors that he has made on the subject, including accusing me of selling 750k's worth of shares.
There still seems to be some technical details regarding the dates of these transactions that are unclear based on what I've read here and in the forum. I haven't had a chance to review the CRO documents myself, so I'll wait to comment until I get a chance to read through them.

Also in the same thread Sean discusses the bannings of Ping and Big Oil Rep:
Well you cant really call pings banning a banning since he had set up a load of accounts, so its a bit of fun to be honest. Father Luke is a different matter.
...
FLD/The Pope/BoR had crossed the line one too many times. ping has many accounts set up (they all have the same avatar), so thats just playing around.
...
Lol, I could ban all of pings accounts in a few mins, but I have not seen anything recently that he has done that is ban worthy (you can always of course ask the question if one person should have multiple accounts). As for BoR he has posting information about Steorn that is factually incorrect, he could phrase this kind of stuff as a question, but the point he posted info that is stated as a fact and is just untrue and I strongly suspect that he knew it was untrue.
I apologize again for not getting a chance to transcribe the interview today. I listened to the interview while driving, and I especially want to pull out some of Sean's comments regarding Magnetic Viscosity and Sv.

One final note, if you didn't get a chance to view the UCD debate, I noticed that Dispatches from the Future has links to working versions of the videos on YouTube. Check it out while they last!

27 comments:

Thicket said...

You may remember Crank's comments about the Steorn presentations at Dublin College.

Specifically, she said

Quote

First 'rebuttal guy' got up, and opened by saying that Conservation of Energy was a matter of faith. I nearly fell off my chair

I waited for the kicker, thought he was leading up to some clever point, but that 'was' his point.

Unquote

It seems that Crank is so immersed in Sean-worship that she blithely twists actual words and events to suit her Sean sycophant status.

Here is a transcript of what was actually said by the 'rebuttal guy'.

Quote

and I claim and I say that Conservation of Energy is an absolute law, no ifs, ands, buts, no exceptions, no maybes.

Now you're going to have to maybe accept a leap of faith. You either accept that or you don't.

Now I stake my claim based on 400 and more years of scientifc research and the Conservation of Energy principle is/has never, what I can say for a fact, it has never proved to be wrong. Going across the disciplines of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, electromagnetics, mechanics, all these disciplines it's been, has not been proved to be wrong.

And you can look at the eminent scientists, engineers and physicists from Newton through Joule, Bernoulli, Maxwell, probably the greatest theoretical scientist of the last century, Einstein...

Unquote

You can listen to the rest, but the 'rebuttal guy' continues to defend Conservation of Energy based on SCIENCE, not on faith.

Crank, you've lost all semblance of objectiveness. How can you sit and listen to the same words as the rest of us and say that the rebuttal guy's point is that Conservation of Energy is a matter of faith? You need more sustenance that Sean's Kool Aid because you're hallucinating.

Anonymous said...

Loads of lying scumbags like Father luke puke, Boring Oil Rep, Thickass were banned - LOL

Aww what a shame.

That's what happens guys when you make up stuff and post it as fact.

When Orbo hits the streets it'll be funny to watch you all squirm and to see the excuses you'll have to come up with. lol

007

John said...

The question about the scientific side of things can be debated forever . Some will say the evidence has been presented for for years and cannot be disputed , others say we don't know everything yet ( although my wife would disagree :) ) . Steorn says wait and see , and in the meantime are willing to debate certain things .

But when it comes to the financial question , the records seem to show that they have taken new investment , Sean simply states that they haven't . Now we are not talking about a theory here , we are talking about a fact , written down on paper . It may be that it is misinterpreted , if so then at least Sean should be willing to show or say why that is instead of saying " take me at my word " .

This is a perfect opportunity to blow one of the leading sceptics out and it seeds doubt that Sean doesn't .

Anonymous said...

Sean:Yep, this whole thing is what happens when you have a cynic trying to check accounts with no knowledge at all of what he is talking about - lol, its in a long list of errors that he has made on the subject, including accusing me of selling 750k's worth of shares.


***

Sean, you claim Thicket has 'no knowledge at all of what he is talking about', can you please list the errors Thicket has made reguarding the Steorn financials, and explain where he is wrong.

I have read the CRO and viewed the TIFF. I don't see how this filing does not contradict your claim of no investment since august 2006.

Please explain this as it is a large notch in Thickets belt unless you can show where he is wrong.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

Banning - Who cares?

The Believers. Think how horrifying it would be for 007, Eman8 or Babcat to be banned. World crushing for them I should think.

The Sceptics. Probably don't care. If they don’t believe, where’s the loss? If anything I think some have become far more focused on exposing Steorn since banning.

What banning does do is give Sean slightly more control over what is fed to the forum, and a stick to make those who ‘need’ the forum think twice about asking the ‘wrong’ questions or posting the 'wrong' information about Steorn.

15-India-Street said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
15-India-Street said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=45661

* Steorn
* CommentTimeFeb 10th 2007 edited

permalink
Folks,

On the funding - as we have always stated we are a privately funded company. We made this discovery in 2003 and since then have focused almost exclusively on its development and commercialization (you can in fact see this in the revenue lines). Now if for a small moment you believe that we have what we have you will see that the this financial pattern is in fact a perfect fit to our position. Now if you believe that we are a 'fraud' why did we spend over 3 million of 'the profit'? Indeed we will spend even more than that figure this year.

For those who question if we have raised any money since the economist ad, well that is really easy to find out - contact the CRO (www.cro.ie) and you can ask for documents on our investment history.

Thanks,

Sean

Anonymous said...

http://www.cro.ie/search/

search for Steorn

Results

Steorn Limited #330508 (The one on the .TIF)

Steorn Nominees Limited #406754

Anonymous said...

http://www.cro.ie/search/submissionse.asp?number=330508&BI=C
http://www.cro.ie/search/submissionse.asp?number=406754&BI=C

Anonymous said...

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=10202&page=1&Focus=135651

0din:
just a quick question Steorn : can you confrm that you are not involved in anti-fraud anymore?

*

Sean:
Odin,

We are no longer (since 18th August) involved in doing any forensic work and we have no cases pending.

Sean

*

0din:
only 18th august? i thought working on this device had taken you years and that it was taking all your time and investments.. So you mean that meanchile you were develepping this device you were still involved in anti-fraud business..

*

Steorn:
Hi Odin,

Yes - the forensic stuff is (was) very interesting and really only involved my time. The reason to stop was that with this claim 'floating' during the validation process I would not be a credible witness.

Thanks,

Sean

Anonymous said...

People need to understand the difference between the date that a document is filed with the CRO and the date of the transaction. People also need to understand that providing misleading financial information on a company with the objective of implying fraud is a very dangerous game. If you people want to continue with this route then you should first contact an Irish accountancy practice and gain advise on what actually happens when people invest in an Irish Limited Company. I would also suggest that the owner of this blog be careful, because he is in a position of approving this content.

Anonymous said...

"Steorn has a coinvestor in Orbo along with Enterprise Ireland and EVP."
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=24723&Focus=579003

The rest of thread has insight into the minds of the Ban Masters and other forum notables.

Anonymous said...

More bannings today. jimBob, banned for ...nothing again.


Steorn claims Pennies_Everywhere is back. As the user Maryyugo

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=56471&page=3#Item_46


Althought it is just as likely E8 decided this was so than Steorn having any evidence.

Anonymous said...

"More bannings today. jimBob, banned for ...nothing again.


Steorn claims Pennies_Everywhere is back. As the user Maryyugo

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=56471&page=3#Item_46


Althought it is just as likely E8 decided this was so than Steorn having any evidence. "


I'm afraid E8 is right - If you Google MaryYugo then you get links to Pennies. Also, If you look at the language, it's also the same.

Kent said...

Apparently I was banned today as well... Haven't posted in days, not sure what's up.

Anonymous said...

"If you people want to continue with this route then you should first contact an Irish accountancy practice and gain advise on what actually happens when people invest in an Irish Limited Company."

I am certain this is what some people are already doing:

E-mail info@cro.ie

"If you are unable to find an answer to your question by searching our website, you can e-mail our Information Office.
Please enter nature of your query in the subject box."

What is not clear is:
Can shares in a Limited company be paid up in advance of their allotment or issuance,and if so, how far in advance.

Also, how does a company account for or report to the CRO cash paid up to said company, or promised to be paid up, for shares to be alotted or issued at a future date?

Is there any mechanism by which a limited company could take in cash but not report this cash in their annual filing (B1) or Balance Statement in the year this cash was received and could a limited company allot or issue shares for that cash at some future -perhaps years out-date?

ben said...

(hairykrishna)

"People need to understand the difference between the date that a document is filed with the CRO and the date of the transaction"

It is my understanding (from the Irish corporate law page) that notice of any share transactions had to be filed within a month of them taking place. Am I wrong about this?

If there was anything actionable, libel wise, on these pages I'm sure Steorn would have already sent the takedown notices.

Take your vague legal warnings (threats?) elsewhere.

Thicket said...

Quote
People need to understand the difference between the date that a document is filed with the CRO and the date of the transaction. People also need to understand that providing misleading financial information on a company with the objective of implying fraud is a very dangerous game. If you people want to continue with this route then you should first contact an Irish accountancy practice and gain advise on what actually happens when people invest in an Irish Limited Company. I would also suggest that the owner of this blog be careful, because he is in a position of approving this content.
Unquote

Is that you, Sean?

Threatening this website again, I see.

Instead of threats, why don't you explain the financials to us? I'm sure you realize that there's lot of people interested. You're obviously squirming when people scrutinize public information about Steorn, instead of things being hidden in a cloak of secrecy.

Anonymous said...

http://unisonconsultants.com/WhoWeAre.html

Anonymous said...

http://unisonconsultants.com/WhoWeAre.html

I think there is a Hatfield that owns shares in Steorn...

"Luke operates from Sydney and Croatia"........

Anonymous said...

Crank has no credibility.
She is an artist.
Artists always say funny stuff to sell their products.

Father Luke Duke said...

"People need to understand the difference between the date that a document is filed with the CRO and the date of the transaction. People also need to understand that providing misleading financial information on a company with the objective of implying fraud is a very dangerous game. If you people want to continue with this route then you should first contact an Irish accountancy practice and gain advise on what actually happens when people invest in an Irish Limited Company. I would also suggest that the owner of this blog be careful, because he is in a position of approving this content."
---
Not sure it is Sean, as the grammar and spelling are too good, and it doesn't include one "lol". Could be someone else writing for him though.

Again, no details on how or whom we are apparently defaming. Is saying he took investment after the economist ad the same as accusing him of fraud? No, it's accusing Sean of being a liar, not of carrying out a criminal act.

It would be very interesting to see how someone running a perpetual motion machine company could sue for damaging their "good name" anyway. I would think that they would be laughed out of court.

Anonymous said...

The post misspells 'advice' which is a Seanism. The style is typical of his 'stern Steorn' posts. Nevertheless, it could be someone else.

Thicket

Anonymous said...

"I would also suggest that the owner of this blog be careful, because he is in a position of approving this content."


That’s a desperate, sad threat if I ever saw one. If it is Sean, he should remember that he challenged people to research Steorn financials. He also should know that to claim defamation, he would have to prove that he was telling the truth and that the posters knew that their posts were untrue.

So Sean, the easiest way to silence the critics would be to explain how the CRO filing DOES NOT constitute further investment in Steorn since August 2006.

If this was not posted by Sean, the previous sentence still applies.

Anonymous said...

So I guess that Sean is personally responsible for all of the postings on the Steorn forum. After all, they have the power to moderate, so therefore any threats, insults or lies allowed on the Steorn for are 'approved' by Steorn.

I think many of the banned skeptics would have rather good lawsuits, given the number of outright lies still being posted about them on Steorn. In fact I clearly remember Fenneyman (sp?) threatening to have Pennies legs broken. I guess Sean must have thought that a good idea, as it is still on HIS forum.

Anonymous said...

You egits are doing a fine job of making yourselves look quite the fools.

If there every was a meeting place of complete nutters, this is it.

Hilarious, the lot of ya. Keep up the great entertainment.