cwericb

As per Nnejad's bold text "...(iii) the Company had shifted its focus, and a significant amount of resources, away from its core higher education readiness and Penn Foster core businesses in pursuit of unproven projects to the detriment of its business, financial performance and prospects." I know this is in English, but why can't I read it? What in hell does this mean "...its core higher education readiness..." ??? Did Prem flunk out of university that year?

Suppose you were following a thread where a poster was on Ignore. So now you are only getting a portion of the conversation. Therefore you may make redundant or out of context posts. Perhaps that might cause someone to put you on Ignore because of your posts. I think the feature might be counterproductive to discussions as a whole and if someone is truly making a nuisance of themselves, our moderator has the power to caution them, delete posts and threads, or ban them from the board. All of which have been done at one time or another. I might not agree with some here on some subjects, but that does not mean that we might not concur on others. As Munger says... “After all, the value of an investment board is in part related to the diversity of opinion no matter how foolish at times.” I have too much respect for members of this board to put anyone on Ignore.

The above might be politically incorrect, but still the best laugh of the day!

Wouldn't you like to sit down and pick his brains for an hour or so?

That's better! And I like the "Go Up" Thanks guys! May take a while to get used to it, but when I think back to the old MSN site and how you would have to wait and wait at times for a page to load, this is a great improvement - Generation 3! Out of curiosity, when was the original site started?

As they say, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

I have been thinking about adding too, but what would be the effects of a disastrous hurricane season?

I agree with gurjot. Well thought out and presented comments by moore_capital54.

Who makes Tums and Rolaids? Its starting to look like potential for a lot of growth there. I have a some at home, in the car, at work, in my gym bag... If this market keeps going like this I think I'll open an anti-acid stand on Wall Street and sell shares.

Coincidently the Sears 2011 "Christmas Wish Book" just landed on my doorstep about two hours ago - all 875 pages of it.

Oops, I didn't mean to suggest that Sanjeev was siding with those who have been supporting Block's defenders. On the contrary if anything, he has made it pretty clear that he views that report as probably being rather biased. As with my posting about the Q2 results he has only posted reasonably reliable or interesting information on the subject. I can see how my remark may have been misinterpreted. I added that quote to show that he, like you and myself were all adding to the “disgusting” comments on this thread. I will edit that to make it clearer.

Some here seem to have a very selective memory, tend to twist the odd fact and like to quote out of context - as per the above. But when someone asks them questions about their own position they conveniently refuse to respond. I have stated my position on Carson Block and TRE ad nauseam. Unfortunately some either chose to ignore or fail to comprehend the point I was trying to make. I was simply surprised to find that a few on the board were so quick to label TRE a total fraud based almost solely on the Muddy Waters report by Carson Block when there was good reason to doubt the report’s sincerity and accuracy as well as Mr. Block’s credentials. Because of that, some have tried to suggest that I was either trying to defend or promote TRE and now you criticize me for posting that Sino announced their 2Q results and an update on the PWC report. This type of response is as mystifying as is the fact that a certain few relentlessly criticize anything that is not in line with the Muddy Waters report. I find this very strange. I also find it coincidental that at least one of these members joined the board at the time of this discussion and immediately promoted Block's views at length. But when those members say that this thread is not worthy of this board and not worth following, why do they almost immediately post objections to anything that does not fall in line with Carson Block’s report? I don’t know what their agenda is, but I really don’t think that our Board needs you as censors for what is acceptable for board members to read and what is not. Our moderator is perfectly capable of doing that. However, since he too has also initiated comment on TRE than, like myself and some others, we are all contributing to the fact that ..... “It's disgusting to see something that has fraud written all over it being touted over and over again on our board after good advice that the thread should be dropped.” Personally I try to keep an open mind and learn from people on this board. My posting on this thread is usually only to show that there is another side to this controversy other than Block's which seems to be so well promoted here. You guys seem to be long on innuendo and short on facts and then suggest that I am the one with the closed mind. Whether TRE is a fraud or not remains to be seen, I suspect there is some truth to the accusations but not enough to call the company a complete fraud, Ponzi scheme, and thereby worthless. If the company should fail, it will more likely be caused by the accusations rather than by the facts revealed by the report. As for Don Quixote is concerned, the only vision problems are of the tunnel variety that comes from believing too much of what some self promoting shyster says.

"It's disgusting to see something that has fraud written all over it being touted over and over again on our board after good advice that the thread should be dropped." 1) With all due respect, who appointed you three or four guys to decide what threads are acceptable on this board. There has been three of four threads on TRE and this one alone has had over 13,000 views. Personally I would think members of this board are probably intelligent enough to decide which threads they read and which they do not. 2) You seem very sure of your position, what if you are wrong? 3) Aside from the MW report - why do you say TRE has fraud written all over it? What other information are you basing your stand on? 4) If you are relying on Carson Block for your information you might want to check out his background a little more closely. And you might note that even he has changed his accusations of fraud and Ponzi scheme to an “overstatement” - that’s quite a change. 5)Who has ever 'touted' TRE? If you are suggesting that I have than you have your information wrong. I stated some time ago that I wouldn’t be surprised if TRE was probably worth more than a couple of bucks. Its been at $6-7 for some time and, in fact, held up very well while everything else tanked. However, it could go either way and like every other share purchase it is a bit of a gamble. One of the biggest hurdles that TRE faces now is NOT the damage that fraud has done but the damage the ACCUSATIONS of fraud has done to the company and its ability to obtain financing. When people say things like TRE “has fraud written all over it’ when they really have no proof of that and they pronounce their opinion as being a fact, they become part of the problem. “I'm getting pretty sick of cwericb's bumps talking about how great his TRE bottom call has been.” I beg your pardon, but would you like to back that up? I have never once said anything about that and this is a reflection of some of the twisted comments that have appeared here. Today I simply posted some pertinent news regarding the Q2 results and the PWC report. As far as “bumps” are concerned I have only responded to some mis-information.

“How do you explain the satellite photos taken at the expense of one of our board members showing the phony Potempkin Village of what was supposed to be their main operations?” I don’t. I’m no expert on Sino nor do I profess to be, nor do I defend them nor make excuses for them. I simply think there is a very good chance that the company is worth more than $1-3 a share. If I am wrong I am probably in good company. Richard Chandler has paid an average of somewhere around $7 per share for nearly 20% of the company and may be seeking control. Even if there is major fraud, I would suspect that Chandler still sees this as a way to pick up this company at a bargain price. (Re Satellite photos - Are you sure that those photos were pertaining to TRE and not to ONP?) “They're one step ahead of me, no conference call.” There has been a number of suggestions like this that seem to be rather naive. It is like the twisted accusation that Sino cancelled the analysts tour because they had something to hide when it was the analysts who asked for the tour to be postponed. By the way I now see that it has been announced that the tour will be back on when the PWC report is issued, which seems to make sense to me. Did anyone seriously think for one minute that there would be a conference call? There is a pending lawsuit and a detailed audit being conducted by PWC surely mamagementy is in no position to be answering questions at this point and I would imagine that they were told to keep quiet. “Boy it takes a long time to review unfounded claims these days.” You wouldn’t have shorted this stock now would you?

"If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it count?" Only if it lands on Carson Block? :) I would think that almost any company of this size and as spread out as is TRE, doing business in a relatively undeveloped country like China, would likely have some 'dirty laundry'. Things are not done quite the way they over there as they are here. That should be expected. But when this all shakes out I would think that the company will essentially have passed the test but with two major improvements. Firstly, and unlike many companies - weather its in China or North America - investors will have an in depth PWC report to tell them exactly what is going on within that company. How many companies anywhere will have undergone that type of scrutiny? Secondly it will have Richard Chandler as major shareholder and not only does he know this area his track record is pretty good. If there was any kind of a Ponzi scheme I doubt they would be paying off loans. One would also suspect the quarterly report probably had PWC's blessings before it was released. So unless one believes that PWC and Ernst & Young were easily duped and that Wellington, Davis, and Chandler had a wish to throw away serious money, this company is going to be around for a while yet. Considering shares were $20-25 before the MW report and are now $7.00 solely due to the MW 'report', one would that even if there are some overstatements found that there is still upside potential. Just my opinion.

Sino repays $90 million dollar note : http://www.sinoforest.com/Uploads%5CPress%20release%20-%20repayment%20of%202011%20Notes%20%28FINAL%29.pdf And releases Q2 results and update on PWC report: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2011/15/c3709.html No resignations, no suicides, no whistle blowers, loans being repaid, results being released and major share purchases by reputable buyers such as Chandler who now owns nearly 20%. TRE is presently over $7.00.

Smazz I have been using Firefox for the last couple of years with no problem. I also use RBC direct and it works fine for me.

"Where's the home key on my iPad? LOL. Apple is causing me finagle-flicking carpel-tunnel-digit syndrom" Haha, that's why I thought a Top of Page button might be helpful since there are so many variables with so many different divices. Hope you recover soon....

Re Top of Page Button Thanks guys - Function and Escape keys aparently will do that on my netbook. I have 3 computers and each seems to have different shortcut keys.

Small point. How about a button at the bottom of each page to return to the top of the page?

That worked easy! For those of us who don't have Paypal it accepts Visa, Mastercard, etc. I agree that there should be something larger than that little button because I never would have seen it if I hadn't been looking.

You're the boss, but don't undervalue what this board means to the members. If you ever need to hire a temp or need equipment just let us know and I would think that we could come up with whatever was needed. EricB

Regarding the fee discouraging new members, I really don't think $25 a year would be too much of a deturrant and as tnp20 said, a 3 month free trial period should resolve this. But I am sure that Sanjeev could use the fees to make the board even better and more reliable. I just think that we gain a lot from having him manage the board and we don't contribute even a small token of our appreciation.

"I would pay the membership fee, no problem. What I worry about is that closed forums tend to stop attracting new members because with most forums, you have to be part of a community for a while before you realize how valuable it is, so few people would be ready to pay just to join." I thought about this, so what about a 30 day free period or you could read but could not post until the fee was paid?

Thank you guys very much. What a time for the site to go down! I'm sure we all can appreciate that you were busy with other matters and then had to take time out to try to bring the site back up. QUESTION for the board: It has been some time since a membership fee was brought up. Perhape we should start a pole on this, but a nominal fee - say $25 or so - for a yearly membership would help compensate Sanjeev for his work, allow him to hire techs when things like this happen and it also would help screen out people who were not really serious or those who have their own adgenda that was not in keeping with the spirit of the board. For me, $25 or $50 would be a very small price to pay for access to this board. I value this board and board members contributions far more than any yearly fee. What do others feel?