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 : ECNC (OTC:BB) - eConnect -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Erik Lundby who wrote (7978)	3/25/2000 3:53:00 AM
From: makeswaves	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18222

Eric, without rancor, I don't believe in "believing in". Please address the meat of the message, though, is it likely that the SEC has some assurance of the existence of PRODUCT if the stock does trade Monday? Wouldn't that be the BONEHEAD MOVE OF ALL TIME for the SEC, i.e.: Halt trading of the stock, misquoting co pr's in the SEC pr, causing untold upheaval amongst longs, shorts, and in-betweens, not following up with what exactly has been found to be fraudulent etc., and then, as the coup de guerre allow the stock to be traded without some proof of the existence of the technology which caused all the excitement in the first place. Again, that would be the BONEHEAD MOVE OF ALL TIME! and indeed, a possibility but unlikely. I'm not worried anyway, in the larger picture these things always even out. I'm sure you have far more experience in these matters than I do but just as certain as there is no such thing as a "no-brainer" long buy, neither is there a "no-brainer" short. Perhaps you were messing with gold this past fall???Seriously if everyone took A@P, the greater and lesser Pluvias's and the rest of harranguers on this board at their word and shorted this "POS" Monday {sorry, "POS" with PRODUCT} I wonder what if any effect that would have on the price? donnachaidh

To: Erik Lundby who wrote (7978)	3/25/2000 3:55:00 AM
From: buffaloha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18222

Excuse me Mr. Lundby, ...but I did give you a response a few posts ago. Since you are not paying me a fee to do your own work, I do not expect to waste my time on the inanity of the issue. We will see soon enough. By the way, did you or the other aiders get involved in this part of the scheme? To: Ken O'Connor who wrote (7459) From: JIM FEN Tuesday, Mar 21, 2000 1:40 AM ET Reply # of 7992 Jeffersonian, maybe this will refresh your memory!!!! A@P is behind the lawsuit. He posted a message on the SI board on March 12th saying he could help ECNC investors. When i emailed him how this was his response.....notice the phone # in the press release is the same as the one A@P recomended news.excite.com From: "A@P" To: Subject: Re: ECNC Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:33:28 -0800 Contact Matt Zevin, Esquire ,,they wont charge you a dime.. @ 1-800-437-7918 he is anxious to handle this for all shareholders... I am very sorry for your loss. Anthony *********************************************************** Then we have this from Mrs. Hoghead's fine research: To: buffaloha who wrote (7294) From: Mrs. Hoghead Friday, Mar 17, 2000 5:21 AM ET Reply # of 7992 Any coincidence here? We've all watched western movies. This is the old "box canyon" trick. Shorters drove us in, SEC on the right, class action attorneys on the left. Nowhere to go. This is a familiar cast; check who the players are. Do any of you find it odd that this firm was the first to jump into the fray? Are all these players on A@P's speed dial? Docket as of November 18, 1998 [retrieved 12/8/98] Proceedings include all events. 2:98cv9236 Amr Elgindy v. Avtel Comm Inc, et al (ANx) (ANx) U.S. District Court Central District of California (Western Div.) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 98-CV-9236 Amr Elgindy v. Avtel Comm Inc, et al Filed: 11/17/98 Assigned to: Judge William J. Rea Jury demand: Plaintiff Referred to: Discovery Arthur Nakazato Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 850 Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: Federal Question Dkt# in other court: None Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act AMR ELGINDY, on Behalf of Kevin J Yourman Himself and All Others FAX 310-209-2348 Similarly Situated [COR LD] plaintiff Matthew Joseph Zevin [COR LD NTC] Weiss & Yourman 10940 Wilshire Blvd 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-208-2800 v. AVTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC defendant ANTHONY E PAPA defendant JAMES P PISANI defendant 11/17/98 1 COMPLAINT filed Summons(es) issued referred to Discovery Arthur Nakazato; jury demand (jp) [Entry date 11/18/98] [END OF DOCKET: 2:98cv9236]