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 : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PCModem who wrote (40186)	8/2/1999 6:33:00 PM
From: Roger Bodine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

PC, I appreciate and, as usual, respect your factual point of view. Clearing the air around here is not an easy task. Roger

To: PCModem who wrote (40186)	8/2/1999 7:01:00 PM
From: jhild	Respond to of 43774

Roger the validity of my opinions and of what I quote as "fact" can be established based on known facts. What hog wallow. The things you quote as fact are not always. This Form D thing is a good example. Your initial assertion that it was a fraud, then your concession that it was genuine, now your dismissal of its contents flies completely in the face of reason. John Schmitz signed that document under criminal penalty. Yet because you want to promote the idea that there are fewer authorized shares, you use the lower number that is on the company web site. You dismiss the document that if there are misrepresentations on it, could send John Schmitz to jail for up to 5 years. Should I recite the litany of facts that you have promoted - RMC, Belize guaranteed loans, 84 Lumber, NHLT, etc.? You would brand me a liar and yet you have failed to ever demonstrate that I have in fact ever lied. Using your own definition that you would so snugly wrap yourself in, you can never even begin to make the case. Admit it, the real reason that you would have me silenced is so that the truth may be silenced, so you can anonymously work your misrepresentations and steal away into the night with profits taken from standing on the shoulders of those that might make the mistake of actually believing your statements or thinking that they were based on the facts that you so disingenuously promote.

To: PCModem who wrote (40186)	8/2/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: ColleenB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

My opinions are based on the information that is available. Hog wash. Problem is your posts are presented as declarations and not stated as opinions, whether they be right or not, mostly not. For example, how about the time you insisted that the shares from the PPM are restricted when in fact they are not. It's clearly stated in the PPM that the shares are not restricted but you had to argue with wireless wonk about this very issue. And, he proved you wrong. The information I post is based on information that is available. Major problem is that the information you choose to represent is outdated and you know this as it's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. And this is a big no, no according to the SEC, they are very clear on this. b.To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or.... law.uc.edu Someone may read the same information and have a different opinion. If it is a valid opinion it should be defensible based on the information available. An opinion is one thing but to disregard factual information and post erroneous/outdated information in it's place is a totally different issue. An opinion is generally formed when there is something to interpret, however, there is nothing to interpret when reading the Form D/PPM that John Schmitz signed and delivered to the SEC on March 23rd regarding the fact that there are now 880 Million Outstanding shares and 1.75 Billion Authorized. geocities.com So, to say your opinion differs as the reason you declare different numbers is absurd and won't hold up in a court of law. You are purposely misrepresenting information and you know this, otherwise you would present all the information and let the individual make up his or her own mind.