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.

Technology Stocks : COM21 (CMTO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charlie Smith who wrote (1664)	2/3/2000 3:55:00 PM
From: pat mudge	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2347

I have yet to see or hear independent evidence of the situation you describe. What sort of independent evidence would be most likely to come forward? Are you referring to legal comments or an analyst's? If legal, would it come from TERN or from the SEC? I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an analyst to make negative comments. And what does the "if" rest on? Do you mean "if the CEO said what we thought he said", referring to CC? In other words, would we need a taped copy of the CC to clarify the contradiction? If so, who might have one? Do analysts tape CCs? I posted my notes from the CC, but didn't tape it. TIA -- Pat

To: Charlie Smith who wrote (1664)	2/3/2000 4:44:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2347

I have yet to see or hear independent evidence of the situation you describe Charlie: First, what "situation" are you referring to? What Pat has done is merely act as a conduit to what is clearly verifiable information. As far Pat providing a link to & quoting from an SEC filing, what more independent, conclusive evidence could you want? As far as her notes from the conference call, this is her personal knowledge of the call, which is certainly more creditworthy than anything else we've heard. If, in-fact, her statements were false, I would tend to think we would have heard statements to the contrary here & all over the Internet. All we've heard is silence. We've absolutely nada from the horse's mouth, the TERN officer from whom Pat attibuted the statement regarding receipt of waivers from Rogers Communications. I think any reasonable, rational person would conclude by now that the information provided by Pat is accurate & trustworthy. It has been subject to universal challenge for almost a week now, and no one has stepped forward with contradictory information. Just like a jury in a trial proceeding, at some point you must weigh the evidence presented and come to a conclusion of fact. I suggest that if you don't find Pat's notes from the conference call very trustworthy, you seek out a more verifiable source, a tape of the conference call itself -- if TERN will make it available. Good luck.