Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : FRANKLIN TELECOM (FCM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noneyet who wrote (673)	6/17/1999 10:30:00 PM
From: Wes Self	Respond to of 2891

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

To: Noneyet who wrote (673)	6/17/1999 11:00:00 PM
From: bjc	Respond to of 2891

I will answer 1 of your questions: The difference in the number of shares owned by Frank Peters might be the transfer of 70000 shares to some of his relatives. Call the company if you want to verify. Ok, peewee.

To: Noneyet who wrote (673)	6/17/1999 11:59:00 PM
From: mark garner	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2891

mr desousa: you really failed to answer my post Message 10167105 what i would like to see is some civility here. i am willing to attempt it and i am sure all others here are. so, maybe we can come to some type of agreement as suggested in my post above. i think all of us here are relatively mature and are not offended by a negative post based in facts. if your intentions are really not to annoy everyone here and are really just to present the opposite viewpoint of FCM, if you avoided make posts where there is strong innendo or outright statements that FCM is intentionally misleading the public you may get a different reaction here. take this post Message 9676230 what kind of reaction would you expect? outrage was my reaction. i never have that reaction to a negative post based in fact. i think if you really want to be treated fairly than you shouldnt be questioning the validity of information posted in FCM's 10Qs. if its there, we have to assume that it is factual unless the sec tells us otherwise. additionally, i am sure that there is SOMETHING positive you can say about this company. if you want to be treated fairly, start acting fairly

To: Noneyet who wrote (673)	6/18/1999 1:57:00 AM
From: Salt'n'Peppa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2891

OT: In response to Mr. Thomas DeSousa. Please look up the definition of the word "accusation" in any English/American dictionary. I think you may be misunderstanding it's meaning. The items 1 through 4 that you mention in post #673 are all simply statements, not accusations. They are non-threatening, non-abusive and certainly not bullying, as you suggest. You have been accused of nothing there. I'm so sorry that you don't understand the first 2 paragraphs in post #671. Regrettably, I cannot state them in simpler terms, so I guess their meaning will never be understood. As for the rest of #673, I'm afraid I must side with Wes and respond with a hearty "hahahahahahahahahahahaha". Yes, you did get me suspended for 5 days (I think it was for calling you a babboon - and I do regret that mistake). I learned a lesson there and the reason I am saying this now is in warning to anyone else that may feel sufficiently disturbed by your goading to make a similar mistake. Incidentally, my Serengeti sunglasses do have a rose tint. Thank you for noticing. S&P