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 : HITSGALORE.COM (HITT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommy Hicks who wrote (4952)	1/15/2000 12:37:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 7056

I can see why they hate us. I don't think they were counting on a bunch of cyberinvestigators tromping all over the place. I think the pair of 'em may have reached the "sauve qui peut" stage. But I must confess I have a sneaking admiration for Jeanette. What a piece of work! Evidently she appears to be sincere, and she must be incredibly convincing. Here's a description from one who knows her (to his regret): --early-mid 50's --high roller --lots of jewelry: Rolex watch, tennis bracelet with diamonds, 3-4 carat diamond earrings --eloquent talker --talks up Christianity --has a son and 2 daughters. The older daughter is approximately age 23, the younger is a minor in a private school. The children drive "Mercedes SL 500 cars and a Lambourghini." Can't you just picture her?

To: Tommy Hicks who wrote (4952)	1/15/2000 9:48:00 AM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7056

I doubt very seriously if Jeanette or Dorian were conned. That is something that would be hard to tell from the outside. Who got hurt? Not the principals. Didn't Dorian loan his "own" shares to LFT? Why wouldn't he have benefited from her sales? There are only inside people that know what happened. If there was a con the victims are the people that bought the stock at high or actually any price. I don't mean for this next statements to be related to HITT, Wilcher or Reed et al, However: In a con the money is frequently lost (as told or demonstrated to the sheep that are getting fleeced) by some uncontrolled force. A third party insider. The identification of the bad party is always the other guy as pointed out by either of the principals of the scam. Legal action is assured the fleeced sheep and because the fleeced need to have hope that the money will return they trust in the con person as the honest guy and wait/pray for any one of numerous plans to restore the cash. Never happens. For one of the principals to be conned they would actually have to believe in the plan as set forth to the fleeced. That, I am afraid is not likely. is it? To make it simple. Who lost money? In this case you are speaking of (HITT), it doesn't appear Mr. Reed lost money. I am sure he has more than he started with. It would appear that Ms. Wilcher reaped more than her investment <GG> if anything at all. So they don't appear to have conned each other. Maybe somebody else got taken for a ride. Not the principals. That is certain. A confidence person would love the fleeced individuals to believe they were hurt also. That is a goal of most schemes. An affinity with the victim assures safe passage. <GGG> "Were all in the same boat"...."We'll see this through"...."We'll get those bastards" etc..etc..etc..