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 : e-Vegas.com (EVCM) formerly ECGC -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SwampDogg who wrote (144)	9/26/1999 4:04:00 PM
From: Francis R. Biscan Jr.	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 207

First.......what is the purpose of writing 4 separate posts to respond to my one?? >>It looks like it already has.....<< In what context?? >>Well it looks like being long has been a serious mistake.<< As I said, except in the short term. >>Is that a contradiction? How can it be "clear" if there is no audit? << No, not when it was stated the way it was. You may need audited financials to minimize the risk, where I am willing to take the extra risk and enter early. I do not do this blindly, but I have looked at the past records of those people responsible for the numbers and found they have credible track records. I will take the extra risk, for what I think will be the extra reward. >>I think he still was given a large chunk of the company.<< Was he, where do you find this?? >>Why would he short it lower if he owns tons of stock?<< How do you know he still owns tons or any stock for that matter?? >>As a matter of fact, a lower stock price would lower the damages in the court case.<< The objective would be to get stock for damages, the amount having no relation on the current price. He would then cover his short with this position, saving him from an expensive cover. Rich