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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Ultra Petroleum (UPL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ISPYOIL who wrote (4414)	9/21/1999 9:01:00 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4851

If you know something. Tell us what you know. Give us facts. Not accusations and conclusions. I have been following this mess and frankly, I don't have a clue what it is about. Live long and prosper, Little joe

To: ISPYOIL who wrote (4414)	9/21/1999 10:35:00 PM
From: upultra	Respond to of 4851

I agree. Show us the facts, or stop making up accusations. As far as we know it is all he said / they said (Laird / AOW), nothing is known for sure -- no matter how many words you capitalize. I do not disagree that Laird is a good engineer, but he has said himself (not a direct quote) that he is not financial businessman and does not have knowledge of the stock market and its rules (interview with D. Pescod August 1998) but that he is a technical reservoir engineer. Like I said I don't know the details of the deal or the suit, but I would think that it is possible that Laird did not follow the correct procedures. I'm not saying he did or didn't -- just that it is possible that a mix up occured. It does seem, as Bob Walsh pointed out, that Ultra is not directly involved according to the AOW countersuit, just that they, or common directors are named. cheers, riker