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 : XSNI - X-Stream Network -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Troutbum who wrote (2234)	7/22/1999 2:07:00 AM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 3519

Suntrader, Jacalyn, Dale, Jeff, et al, your thoughts? It's too bad that XSNI shareholders have to wrestle with these issues instead of hearing an explanation from the company. But as we know, anything the company says may come up in future court cases, or at least telephone calls from attorneys. No position in XSNI myself.

To: Troutbum who wrote (2234)	7/22/1999 7:13:00 AM
From: Jacalyn Deaner	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3519

Berwyn - the information in any of these documents are as worthless as the paper written on; look at ALL the documentation on firecrest/ magacom/digaphone/blah blah - WORTHLESS - until the creation of XSNI All we know for sure is millions of shares of XSNI are held in the hands as "payment/exchange" for those formerly worthless firecrest megacom stocks. I don't care what those documents say - each one is DIFFERENT and none is filed in the US; why can't the company come out and say something - even the company is saying TO BLOOMBERG it is privately held and yet XSNI is publicly traded. IF that is so, XSNI does NOT own the parent privately held company; XSNI is just a software "client" - see prior posts of mine somewhere it is posted - may even be reference to it over on www.clearstation.com. That Feb 1999 statement said that there was going to be an IPO of XSNI too - NOT; that Feb 1999 statement to shareholders said alot of things referring to Lehmans handling some "blunder on the initial listing" NOT, in other public documents it says XSNI was incorrectly filed on the OTCBB - wherein in other documents it says XSNI had to be filed on the OTCBB to secure the deal with xstream canada; I was told not to say anything about what I was TOLD by the company, so at this time, that need not be reiterated, just see past posts before the NYC calls came in advising of the company concern that I was asking too many questions and no one liked it and asking in a way they did not like. Since I had tried every possible way to get them to answer questions, I found it little difficult to figure out how these guys like to be asked questions they don't care to answer nor have any intent upon answering. But they are intent on not letting anyone verify information from third parties, from my experience in their dealings with me. Need I say more about anything written. This is a take it or leave stock - no questions and no answers. These people are experts at putting corporations together, can they keep them together - history, man, look at the history; so just go by what you know to date, you, the investor are an afterthought like afterbirth - they don't give a crap about you and never have (history, man) and never will; ARROGANCE in ATTITUDE these guys have ARROGANCE in ATTITUDE and as an ignorant stupid little stockholder of one of their "creations", not entitled to any explanations: so and so said XSNI is "free ISP in the UK" - my take all along - software provider no hardware XSNI - it is a god send for formerly worthless firecrest megacom stock - giving value to worthless paper, although the value is tenuous and driven on unsubstantiated rumours and publications Paul Meyers said the company (not XSNI) is privately held, hence your bold statements of the service and software are owned by X-Stream - which X-Stream and if we go with your take, how can it be privately held and publicly traded. I am not doing DD having been intimidated and threatened with years of litigation and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for asking questions, but I am answering a question based on what I am guessing is fact - having come from the company itself. All public in nature. JACALYN M. DEANER If I am wrong, it is imperative for the company to correct these public statements and make any and all clarifications - without recsource to heavy handed illegitimate threatening tactics, ie having lawyers call to tell one to shut up or else. Has anyone notified Bloomberg and their reporters to threaten them because they published something Paul Meyers said that conflicts with what shareholders were told by so and so? Mike Langdon, "man of integrity" you have been terribly quiet lately, told to lay low after your threats and warnings to me? Not doing DD - if I were doing DD, I wouldn't be answering questions; I'd be asking questions, and getting the answers and not from that privately held company. I was asked a question and for my thoughts and this is only an answer, not DD.