Message 6517819
To: ztect (10356 )
From: Ditchdigger Sunday, Nov 22 1998 7:39AM ET
Reply # of 10522
z, this from the TSIG's 10-Q filed a year ago..
"State the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common equity, as of the latest practicable date: AS OF NOVEMBER 13, 1997, OF THE ISSUER'S COMMON STOCK, $.0001 PAR VALUE, THERE WERE 28,787,557 SHARES OUTSTANDING."
One year-100% dilution-27mm more shares without options(20mm,144's(6mm+),etc...) I'll be watching that outstanding number in quarters to come
Later,I don't really want to spend anymore time on this subject..you keep pulling me back<g> I enjoy a good debate-with facts(and fact is,theres a covertible placed),not maybe's if's,etc....
.
PS: did you see BLFY's float--2.2mm
: YHOO-39.5mm
: KTEL 1.9MM
: AMZN 20.6
-----------------
-------------------------
Per your PM to me which I won't reproduce out of principle, you said in effect that you made your point and therefore didn't see any point to continue to do so.
Yet you continue with the same point, that others have sincerely tried to address and offer their perspective on .
Now Ditch, you say you are reporting "facts' whereas in reality you are reporting your spin on facts.
Your numbers don't account for this particular sector, acquisitions, and many other factors you have chosen not to even attempt to explore. For example, you don't know and haven't inquired about TSIG's acquisition strategies and haven't assessed how these acquisitions effect TSIG's bottom line.
You have highlighted only the points that emphasize your "case" and have omitted evidence that contradict your hypothesis. For example, noting only 144's but not noting that if any were filed by officers, if any were executed, and if so what were the terms, amounts or reasons.For example, you have not noted the major (huge) reduction in debt and the demonstrated re-structuring of the management.
You have not noted current litigation against certain parties trying to undermine the value of this equity of which I would not be surprised to find out you were such a defendent.
Since you have not made an attempt to temper your prosecutorial zeal with even the slightest semblence of objectivity, your arguments are more those of an advocate who feigns indifference. Is yyour real name "Ken Starr"?
You have clearly demonstrated the worth of your word to me, especially in your PM, and have thus further demonstrated a lack of intergrity, that undermines the same point you have been trying to incessantly make, and purport as fact through mere repetition, where all you really have is a mere and biased intepretation based on numbers without explanations which you state are your reasons not to buy.
So don't buy, move on, for by your own admission to me ....
you made your point.. and "...don't really want to be here.."
That is, if you are a man of integrity.
which I doubt
ztect |
