To: PCModem who wrote (40200 ) 8/3/1999 8:56:00 AM From: ColleenB Read Replies (1) | Respond to
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. #reply-10786444The shares are restricted. *Sigh* Of course, you are wrong, again. #reply-10497769The shares in the PPM are restricted . I just finished reviewing the discussion here...ww's posts to barb are particularly uninformative, since he does not know what he is talking about. Being much more careful than the local liars, he qualifies everything he has to say on the subject. At least he is not as stupid as they are.You sir, are a bald faced liar and tout : and how do you - ineffectually - try to cover that up? Call every one else a liar. You're so obvious it's almost embarrassingPurchasers of the Common Stock will incur immediate substantial dilution in the net tangible book value of the Common Stock acquired by them upon completion of this offering . Dilution is the reduction in the value of the purchaser's investment measured by the difference between the purchase price and the net tangible book value per share after the purchase occurs. geocities.com The PPM investors have to wait a year. #reply-10462855 There is no mention that the shares in the private placement were to be restricted for one year. I challenge you to prove this. All the Placement Memorandum says is that the shares are not registered . I believe that these shares will become registered shortly with their SB-2 filing. Just a guess at this point, but there is nothing that prevents this that I can see. #reply-10462937any length of time.
