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: ztect who wrote (40029)	3/5/2000 4:25:00 AM
From: Martin E. Frankel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Z, Just my opinion, but I definitely don't think you're dreaming or being delusional... just speculating as are many of us who are willing to spend the time evaluating the scenario in total. Those who are shareholders want the best for TSIG and, hence, our investment. Those who have been investors in TSIG for a long time and are true long-term investors know and understand the tremendous strides TSIG has made recently as well as the difference in the company's current management, BOD and advisors, contracted alliances, potential alliances based on existing partnerships, etc. from that which existed a year ago. The Company needs the funding to complete the alliances and lockup contracts with other majors. Your thoughts about further expansion through acquisitions of other companies in related fields to the company's primary focus is logical and prudent. In my opinion, this "prominent" investment bank sees the same thing or would not put its name and reputation on the line. I do not know the terms of the agreement with the investment bank and I am only speculating, but it is inconceivable to me that they are going to arrange this financing (huge, IMO, for a company of TSIG's size) without taking an active role in every aspect of the company. The reputation and credibility of the investment bank are now open to scrutiny and, again IMO, I don't think they would gamble hurting their "prominence" if they did not feel as comfortable with the potential for TSIG's success as I and many other do. Therefore, I will vote my shares "YES" to help assure this company not only survives, but succeeds and excels. Best always, Marty

To: ztect who wrote (40029)	3/5/2000 12:29:00 PM
From: Jazzbo	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 44908

ztect and Marty, I know you're east-coast, z; what are you doing up at 3am? Those were no "disparate thoughts", rather, well-thought out reasoning. Albeit conjecture. But pleasant conjecture if you're a TSIG investor. You ought to sit at RG's right-hand side, and act as a one-person oversight committee. Lord knows one is needed. Speaking of over-sight, this alleged "prominent New York based investment banking firm", if there is one, damn-well better be sitting in on board meetings and looking over management's shoulders. I sure don't agree much with DD's posts or his pick-and-choose methods of supporting an obviously biased, oft-repeated, argument, but you can't walk through a fish market and ask "what stinks in here", blithely ignoring the source. Our shares outstanding didn't persistently rise over the years merely to "fund" the company. But no saying the past absolutely (as in foregone conclusion, such as DD argues) has to repeat itself. After all, criminals - white collar and otherwise - are worked through the system and released back into society. Some are incurable recidivists, others adhere to the straight-and-narrow, or at least socially acceptable behavior. Some have probation officers, whose ostensible job is to assist in returning to society, remind of the consequences of repeat offenses. Thus, I say, the alleged "prominent New York based investment banking firm" had damn-well better be involved in the direction of TSIG, and oversee use of funds made available to the company, and not just management. Call me a cynic, but I prefer "realist." If there is "prominet" lending institution out there, well, they didn't become prominent without having a boatload of SEC attorneys; to say that the lending institution was dismayed at the limited language allowed by the SEC in the funding PR simply ignores the fact that the lender has a cadre of SEC-savvy attorneys on hand, and knew full-well what may and may not be said. God knows that TSIG's attorneys so far have been woefully inadequate to the task. So I too have a letter in to TSIG requesting at a minimum that shareholders know the identity of the "prominent" lending institution: "prominent" enough, and I don't really care what the terms are; a solid reputation speaks favorably to the future. I also intend to do a little SEC research, because "trust me" unsettles my gut. Marty, I love your posts, and know you speak from the heart. In your next life you ought to be a preacher. I'd say politician, but you've too much sincerity for that calling. And, Bob, thanks for visiting the company and taking the time to post re same. I too wish RG wouldn't make predictions, but you read with a grain of salt, or however the saying goes. In any event, no sense in killing the messenger. Sorry for the long post. Regards, Tim