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 : e.Digital Corporation(EDIG) - Embedded Digital Technology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jon Tara who wrote (14088)	8/16/2000 8:55:21 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18366

>>>Remember, PT, how I arrived here on this thread? How some thread members were spamming EDIG all over the place? That was right about the time of the rise to above 24.<<< Thread members were "spamming" EDIG all over the place? Jon, are you implying market makers hire consultants to post spammed hype on stock discussion threads? Let's think about this. If insiders of the company were providing this so-called spammed hype don't you think we'd have seen insider sales at or above the $20 mark? In fact, how many actually sold above $15? Did any? I believe what you're referring to--even though you weren't aware of EDIG at the time (you came in after the San Diego Tribune article)--was the excitement EDIG generated when IBM and Lucent sponsored EDIG's technology at the Las Vegas CES show. This was when Bill Gates announced his Microsoft retirement so he could concentrate on the kind of technologies which EDIG is involved. Why wouldn't this generate excitement among EDIG investors? It's only natural, isn't it? When Gates held up that handheld music player, on CNN's Larry King Show, excitement brewed very, very strongly amongst ALL EDIG enthusiasts. I think it's wrong to distort this excitement by calling it spamming. It's further true that the lack of evidence for insider selling at EDIG's high marks show it unlikely that spamming came from company insiders. Were this the case, insiders would have spammed and then sold all of their stock--purchased for mere cents--at prices in excess of the 20-dollar mark. They'd instantly have become multi-millionaires? Could it be market makers hire consultants to propagate spammed hype; could it be maket makers hire consultants to propagate the bashing of a company? Given MM's pull in large money with the stock going either up or down, it'd appear they'd have the necessary incentive to spam and/or bash a company. And, of course, what of daytraders? But the EDIG "cult," as you so unfairly continue to label EDIG's genuine investors? Jon, you're plain wrong! OK, for purposes of your concerns, let's concentrate on the spammed hype aspect? Why spam hype? Would such motivation be rooted on becoming a millionaire? And if you succeed becoming one, why risk this enormous gain by continuing to spam? I find it unlikely newborn millionaires themselves would become addicted to spamming. How ludicous! (LOL) Would a paid staffer, hired two or three tiers away from a market making firm, perhaps do this? Maybe. But a millionaire!?! Check out these numbers: moneycentral.msn.com Message 13376448 OK, so Fred Falk, Renee Warden and Robert Putnam are today millionaires! Do you really think they're behind all the spam? Ironically, they became millionaires and they sold at less than half of EDIG's highest value. Why didn't these folks sell ALL their shares at or near EDIG's highest share price, pack up the company and split with male/female bimbos to tropical islands everywhere? But Falk, Warden, Putnam and even Woody Norris are still enthusiastically with EDIG. And what an insult to poor Mr. Putnam, a mere vice president of--as you and Carl would lead us to believe--a two-bit company! Why would a millionaire even want such a role? There are better things in life! I think the answer rests with what EDIG's critics are sorely missing. And it's an extremely important fact. The above-named individuals aren't necessarily bent on becoming millionaires, rather they're dedicated to their work and have a desire to see their accomplishments collegially recognized amongst peers in today's technological world. I guess the best example to what I'm writing about is the Zulu-tek (ZULU) debacle, my great personal investment failure. Zulu-tek claimed cutting edge technology (online television-like advertising). What happened? The propagators (manipulators) grabbed up the money from investors in a series of smoke and mirror actions, packed up and split the scene, leaving investors like myself high and dry. Zulu publicly proclaimed it was moving for Nasdaq or AMEX--but NEVER submitted an application! EDIG's done so such thing and has behaved in no similar manner. In fact, it embarks on a continued growth strategy, the Nasdaq application being but a part. Unquestionably, EDIG is involved in an infant phase of voice/music/video technology, has aligned itself with some of America's best companies and has communicated very openly with its investors. So what's wrong with this picture? Nothing!