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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : GLOW - Global Games, Inc. - Great Profit Potential ! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Davis who wrote (8788)	7/11/1999 1:33:00 PM
From: jjbucci	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8879

Bob, << Everything that I ever posted on SI about GLOW has subsequently been proven to be absolutely correct. You seem to be the only person who hasn't figured this out yet. >> ===================================================================== Was the following true ? To: endwrench (5601 ) (Trial Member) From: Bob Davis Saturday, Aug 1 1998 2:04PM ET Reply # of 8788 Guys, I suggest that you look at the article in The Independent....really, really hard.... If you do you will see a HTML link to the July 30th GLOW press release. Mr. Julius Timothy is specifically refuting GLOW's July 30th press release. I'm sorry but I had already looked at that specific issue before I ever made my first post. I specifically wanted to make sure exactly "what" Mr. Timothy was refuting. Bob Davis ================================================================== It was not true....The Government of Dominica was not the second party to the contract announced on July 30. (I will admit that the situation was confusing.) How about you posting your front page article on GLOW from August 1 before you Updated it to correct "the discrepancies". =================================================================== To: Gennaro (5634 ) From: Bob Davis Saturday, Aug 1 1998 4:55PM ET Reply # of 8788 Gennaro, I can understand that you are angry... I think that I have clarified the "discrepancies" in my various posts over the last several hours. I also think that it is safe to assume that The Independent was not aware of the GLOW releases, even though they have demonstrated that they have access to internet news by posting a HTML link to the last GLOW press release. As I mentioned in another post a few minutes ago, I do not have a position in GLOW, either long or short; I have never had one in the past and I never will in the future. Specifically, I told my 7,000 readers about the GLOW situation on July 13th, and only came onto this board after someone over here had some derogatory things to say about me shortly after I published. In fact, my continued due diligence of GLOW is solely in response to these attacks. Bob Davis ===================================================================== My point of contention with you and your postings is that you simply changed your web page when the "new facts" were presented without any kind of a retraction for the original erroneous information you had posted for all to see. Remember, You had posted that the contract mentioned in the July 30 Press Release was non-existent and that the release was basically a fraud being perpetrated by the company. (not your exact words). I have explained this on numerous occasions. If you post the ORIGINAL article from August 1 and I am wrong, I will publicly apologize here. jjbucci