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 : 1ST MIRACLE GROUP (MVEE), founders last co. went $0.20-$46 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhild who wrote (4213)	8/15/1999 3:14:00 PM
From: DablocTrader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5541

LegalBeast/jhild; One and the same. After following your dialogues carefully for weeks now, you have confirmed my suspicions that "you" two ARE one and the same. The writing styles and interpretations are identical, other than presenting the opposite sides of the coin to "each other"! You raise the issues, then discuss the positives and negatives. Very entertaining, as well. But you exhibit the most insightful rational when it comes to weighing the pros and cons of deciding whether or not to buy, sell or hold a stock position! I can't wait to see one of you two "win"; convince the other through extensive DD that MVEE is, or is not a wise investment decision. Keep "us" posted! Hope everyone is having a fine weekend, dabloc

To: jhild who wrote (4213)	8/15/1999 3:32:00 PM
From: JeffO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5541

The evidence that Cataldo has not misrepresented anything during his tenure at SNTKY is demonstrated by the fact that nothing exists on the SEC site. Anyone that believes otherwise can search the SEC web site themselves for complaints and/or charges against Cataldo. None will be found. sec.gov Surely if SNTKY had anything documenting their accusations the SEC would be a better forum for these charges than message threads. Yet a group of disgruntled SNTKY whiners persist to harp on RB, on Yahoo and on SI.

To: jhild who wrote (4213)	8/15/1999 4:31:00 PM
From: LegalBeast	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5541

Shame on you. you have falsely alledged that there are many more facets to this issue tan presently exist. I find your listing of these points amusing and creative, but the phrase "interesting, but not very" comes to mind. Your post (With reference numbers attached): 1) There are the allegations that he attended Ohio State and received a degree. 2) There is the claim that he did not do any such thing. 3) There is the phone number for Ohio State. 4) There is the claim that people did in fact call and found no record of his attendance. 5) There has been no denial of the allegation of his falsifying his record. 6) This claim is easy to refute, if it is not true. Yet you would set the bar at notarized proof. Well get it yourself. But don't argue that the answer to the question is not relevant. That is nonsense. 1 & 2 are the same thing from each side. 1 is documented in an SEC filing while 2 is an anonymous unsubstantiated assertion 3 is available in any phone listing of the area. Whoopie! 4 is, like 2 an anonymous unsubstantiated claim, and as we have discussed before, it is very unlikely that a person off the street would be able to get such information over the phone. It appears that there is no record with the SEC of negative information in this regard. 5 is quite amusing. Why would anyone in their right mind waste their time responding to an anonymous allegation on Yahoo? 6. Same as 5. I never said anything about notarized proof. I simply said that you will need more than anonymous posters on Yahoo to make it relevant, and I suggested that perhaps a memo from the registrar would suffice. I recall that you have a real problem with the burden of proof. Well, you still have the same hurdle here as on PABN: You are bringing forth the assertions, therefore the burden is on you to offer the proof. As much as you would have me prove innocence, I really don't care one way or the other. To me it is a non issue unless you can offer something better and so far you have not. Plus, you never answered the real question: What remedy would you want? Flog the man, have him wear a scarlet letter, have shareholders tar and feather him? What penalty should be assessed if these charges are proven?