bosley
- 20 Feb 2004 09:34
tweenie
- 06 Dec 2006 20:02
- 22858 of 27111
may all at seo have a very shitty xmas.
garyble
- 06 Dec 2006 20:41
- 22859 of 27111
Greek,
FCN 558 and the info I posted is on the FDA site {will post link later}.
You'll probably find that the FCSs are identified by their constituent names and not their brandnames. Also, as Starpols are simply blends of existing approved substances with the odd "top secret" ingredient. it maybe only the additional elements with reference to the pre-existing FCSs that need a mention.
Tonyrelaxes
- 06 Dec 2006 22:45
- 22860 of 27111
Re Starpol 3000 - FDA
Just checked my notes of the EGM of 6 November.
Oilywag asked about the 16 week period being up in December.
MW said "Starpol 3000 is a coextruded material of 3 layers like a sandwich. Two outer layers are PLA derived from corn starch. The filling is Thermoplastic starch from BioTec. Thermoplastic is considered to be a foodstuff coming typically from potato starch which does not need any approvals. PLA is a materialused by some supermarkets already for food contact. The only formal test we need to do is just to get a confirmation of the combination of the two materials put together would not be safe. There is no reason why two food contact materials put together would not be contact safe. We are waiting for that."
PL added "we are waiting for final approval"
IB "The development of the material is complete, it is being produced by a pilot machine."
Oilyway "Is it being tested in the States at the moment? ... as part of approval process".
MW "Yes, There are tests going on.."
Clear everyone?
garyble
- 06 Dec 2006 23:40
- 22861 of 27111
As Starpol 3000 Tony!
greekman
- 07 Dec 2006 07:27
- 22862 of 27111
Garyble,
Re your comment "You'll probably find that the FCSs are identified by their constituent names and not their brandnames". Yes that makes perfect sense.
As to the details on the FDA site, I did see it there, it was the none mention of 2000 or 3000 that threw me.
Your previous statement makes it clear.
Tony,
Your bit also helps. Looks like Starpol 3000 Approval (fingers crossed) is just a formality.
Cheers Greek.
oblomov
- 07 Dec 2006 09:16
- 22863 of 27111
Tony/greek
'PL added "we are waiting for final approval"'
It answers the question 'approval not obtained as at 6th. November', but not the question 'Why not?' and not the question 'How has it thus far taken 210 days when the default FDA approval/non-approval period is 120 days?'
And can we believe information given by members of SEO's brilliant management team verbally when we cant even believe what they put in a RNS announcement!
greekman
- 07 Dec 2006 10:10
- 22864 of 27111
Oblomov,
I agree it is strange.
All I can surmise is that the date of submission for Starpol 3000, was not 120 days prior to 6th November. SEO as we well know are very good at getting dates, info wrong.
If there was an FTSE top 100 for RNS AFX cock ups SEO would be at the top of the leader board.
I still feel that whatever the result from FDA a news release would be a must as per LSE rules.
If approval has not been granted, due to the product not reaching acceptable standards and SEO kept it quite, I would be contacting the LSE and wanting to know what actions if any they proposed to take.
Whatever the result from the FDA it must be sp sensitive.
I think we will just have to wait and see.
(Out now for most of the day).
Cheers Greek.
oblomov
- 07 Dec 2006 10:34
- 22865 of 27111
Greek, 'If approval has not been granted, due to the product not reaching acceptable standards and SEO kept it quite, I would be contacting the LSE and wanting to know what actions if any they proposed to take.'
Particularly as the 120 days from the AGM statement in May would have been up before the EGM and open offer in November.
greekman
- 07 Dec 2006 14:55
- 22866 of 27111
OB,
Hear, Hear.
oblomov
- 07 Dec 2006 15:34
- 22867 of 27111
I'm feeling much better now I've read the latest from PM1. Big deals today or tomorrow, then! I feel awful for all those nasty things I've said - I hadn't realised there were people at SEO working 24 hours a day (but only for some of us - maybe not for me)!
'Stanelco staff are working flat out (like 24/7 for some of you) this is a fact, and when people are working that hard, the rewards will come in, it could be today, it could be tomorrow, but when those deals arrive they will be big and very profitable, and the share price will reflect that.'
automatic
- 07 Dec 2006 15:48
- 22868 of 27111
oblomove
what are they working flat out at 24/7, or are they so short staffed now that is now the working week, :)
pinnacle
- 07 Dec 2006 16:06
- 22869 of 27111
PM1 believes his own propaganda!!
I believe in positive news from the original source.
Why should we not be sceptical after all the let downs.
It's time for them to prove themselves.
greekman
- 07 Dec 2006 16:15
- 22870 of 27111
Although the latest from PM1 gives ratings of packaging types, it does not state anything we don't already know regarding SEO products. Interesting article all the same. The article is fact, not propaganda.
But as Pinnacle says, "It's time for them to prove themselves".
automatic
- 07 Dec 2006 17:02
- 22871 of 27111
Rumour on iii USA office closed , all sacked on 30 nov, ANYONE???
automatic
- 07 Dec 2006 17:12
- 22872 of 27111
above post seems to be true
automatic
- 07 Dec 2006 17:15
- 22873 of 27111
We must have numerous orders in the USA to close the SEO office over there??, think its about time we had a RNS
greekman
- 07 Dec 2006 17:16
- 22874 of 27111
Automatic,
The problem with the SEO thread on the site you mention is that there are more children posting on it than any thread on any site I have come across. It has got so bad it became a waste of space reading the posts.
Often there are 20 plus posts in less than 1 hour all spouting the same insulting comments to each other.
Not saying it's not true re the USA office, just will treat as rumor until I see substance.
By the way, not having a go at you, as I except you are asking re any substance.
When this rumor first circulated a poster replied that "If it is true, it maybe that the staff have done their job re selling the idea of SEO products and are no longer needed". You makes up your own mind.
automatic
- 07 Dec 2006 17:34
- 22875 of 27111
greekman
thanks for reply, and i do know what you mean aboutchildren posting, just that one of the posters isn't usualy like that, ah well we will see
johnny the fox
- 07 Dec 2006 17:41
- 22876 of 27111
I haven't posted here for over 12 months now having sold when the sp peaked at 28p. But here we are a year down the line and still no orders, no contracts, no cash flow to speak of, the hat has been passed around yet again to the tune of 'only another' 15mill should see us ok. Even more dilution etc etc.
Correct me but to date seo has not delivered anything but a big fat zero on everything it was supposed to have in the pipeline. (What happened to Greenseal the saviour of the planet? 100's of machines were supposed to be up and running by now. Is there one? What happened to the cig filter sale or the letters of intent, or frogpack, the list goes on.)
I lost faith on this co's ability to deliver a long time ago.
I feel very sorry for people still holding in the mis-begotten belief that one day a miracle will happen.
Apologies for being negative but I don't have sentiments where non performing co's are concerned
JTF
aldwickk
- 07 Dec 2006 18:53
- 22877 of 27111
That about sums it up in 1 post.