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 : TSIG.com TIGI (formerly TSIG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (39922)	3/3/2000 3:24:00 PM
From: Suzanne Newsome	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Reply to SRX7 on RB: Jim, apology accepted. I suspected all along that your real beef was not with me, but that you are angry about the reverse split. Gordon has undoubtedly been less than forthright in the past. He also has been fighting tooth and nail for the survival of this company. If he had not been in such desperate straits last year, he probably would have been more open. I have been told that Gordon was treated very poorly by the "friendly" PP holders. We were deceived by Gordon who in turn was deceived by the PP holders. If we are going to criticize Gordon, we must allow him some path to follow that is correct. If we believe he is "dirty-dealing," we cannot at the same time accuse him of following the law. It would be enlightening to really know all the SEC regulations that apply here. It was interesting to read in Paul Henry's e-mail to MBZ240 that a "damage control" campaign was forbidden by the SEC. Do you remember last year after the 10KSB came out that showed that Gordon "owned" 36 or 40 million shares? I went head-to-head with Sam for days explaining that the document referred to "beneficial" ownership, i.e. the shares Gordon would own if all options were exercised and his loan agreement were carried out. The 10KSB was very misleading in this case. The company insisted this was how the SEC required the information be presented. My point here is that SEC regulations don't always have the shareholders best interest at heart. I for one believe that TSIG wanted very badly to put the name of the bank in the PR. Why wouldn't they? Even if it were a lesser known bank they would have wanted to include the name. It's not as if TSIG has a long established history of dealing with bluebloods. You have read the reports of companies who simply announce out-of-the-blue that there will be a reverse split. TSIG has given us a month's notice, has coupled the bad news with $40 million good news, is holding a shareholders' meeting to "consider" it, and has publicly stated that there will be more good news in the interim. This is as painless as it gets. Some short-term traders will sell and have sold their stock. Some people will always "think" OTC:BB. Reverse split=bad news=sell. That is as deep as they go. Others of us know that there is a "real" world of stocks and investing which has different standards and expectations. This is where TSIG is headed. It's time to get out of the bluejeans and into the 3-piece suit. I hope there will be an effort to compile some questions before the meeting Mar. 27. Regards, Suzanne