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.

Non-Tech : Starnet (SNMM)Online gaming, sexsites, lottery, Sportsbook -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gator who wrote (4081)	7/29/1999 12:50:00 PM
From: trader14U	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8858

ATTENTION.....ATTENTION.....mr. gator......confirmed slimeball...just spoke with tom gillespie from avbc.....you know the company gator...they paid you to post on avbc.....never admitted that did ya?????.....so now we know you ARE INDEED a paid tout...everything you say is worthless....except if you get paid by the word....NOW GO GET YOUR SHINEBOX!!!!!!

To: Gator who wrote (4081)	7/29/1999 1:15:00 PM
From: THOMAS GOODRICH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8858

Gator, I don't see a whole lot of legitimacy in your class-action lawsuit suggestion. The problem with LVC (Las Vegas Casinos) is incumbent upon Starnet in solving, not Starnet shareholders unless of course SNMM shareholders can prove real losses that occurred as a result of fraudulent actions on behalf of LVC and/or its principals. The fact that LVC is in default to Starnet for services rendered could mean they or their owners are financially insolvent and law firms typically do not expend resources going after insolvent people. Reasons for insolvency could range from money hidden offshore to never having had it in the first place.