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 : Interactive Network, Inc. *** INNN *** -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott A. Trapp who wrote (387)	9/8/1999 11:22:00 AM
From: Scott A. Trapp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 418

Hey Dwight, Can you believe all of the BS going on with this stock today especially over on RB. I sold some of mine will get back in when the hypesters leave. Amazing all of the new profiles on RB. I hope no one gets into this stock without thoroughly checking out the situation. Scott

To: Scott A. Trapp who wrote (387)	9/8/1999 2:25:00 PM
From: dwight vickers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 418

Basically correct on the history except that Mr. Lockton had a lot to do with the demise forced on him by TCI in 1995. (Sorry Dave, I still like you) He was a bit intransigent, shall we say? Couldn't do it on his own, and wouldn't give up what he would have had to. Throw in a little of the marketplace being unready, and an incorrect positioning (ahhhhh, the internet.....), and we're pretty close to a conclusion. The $5 per share paid by the TCI group in the settlement was a throwaway. Not significant to valueing the company. Not real money at that point. It was reached as a "split the difference" agreement. TCI wanted it as low as possible, the company as high as possible, to protect the shareholders from massive dilution. They needed a "number" to accomplish a final settlement of the lawsuit. It was a "detail" needing to be addresssed. Anyone saying differently is a prevaricator at best, liar at worst. Dwight