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: TideGlider who wrote (44106)	12/24/2000 10:04:45 PM
From: ztect	Respond to of 44908

Geeze TG........ Don't even want to walk down that street... Though have to say we actually agree on something, but certainly don't wish to belabor the point. "Proximate Cause" hardly makes it worth my efforts. Thus will only offer an addendum, and not discuss the issue again even after the vociferous attack that is most certain to come....and come....and come.... While the object of your angst WORKED for the company he was the biggest conduit for leaked info that both did and didn't transpire. He purposely and repeatedly "tipped" info offering it without being asked for it. Info was offered both to encourage inside buying, as well as inside selling to avoid more significant losses. So, not only did his bi-polar swings reflect his trading, it also reflected his INSIDE trading and "tipping". Now I don't know where I stand regarding RG. (I always felt he was sort of a P.T.Barnum and would be better off keeping his mouth shut. But certainly there have been many on this board, who for their own motives, repeated and embellished his words, even his recorded words as per last year's shareholder mtg.) An accounting of his shares was never given by his accused, despite the repeated requests....Not saying such non-disclosure exonerates. Actually I'd like to see such a disclosure rather than read repeated boldface without supporting evidence. Plus I'd be very interested in finding out why there were large shares settlements w. James Gordon (2 mill pre r/s or 200 thous post r/s) and w. Basic Investments aka "Bernie" (4.5 mill pre r/s or 450 thous post r/s). What litigation did either of these two men threatened that resulted in these LARGE settlements even one from RG's own brother? Moreover what relationship has Bernie had with RG & message board participants, including supposedly your new found "friend" which has been corroborated by a couple people? Anyway, don't see much point in recounting that history on the message boards, because it has been debated way more than enough so 'nuff said here. However, I do hope Scott Roix sheds some light into the sewers for the sake of restoring shareholder confidence. Though on a final note, many shareholders share your sentiments regarding your "friend". Below are just some of those sentiments expressed by other message board participants, when your "friend's" participation on a restricted thread was put to a vote. Rather than be contrite, or showing any semblence of conscience, I sadly don't feel it is within your "friend's" nature to recognize his own errant behavior, while he revels in RG's departure. He's simply too angry and too enamored with the attention he has received from his participation on these threads....seems to have empowered him in some perverse way, like a bad cop emboldened by his badge to abuse the power entrusted in him, which was the trust your "friend" abused due to his proximity to the company. At any cost, IMO is not an end that necessarily justifies the means Anyway maybe he should listen to a word or two from Dubya about "humility". As an aside, have to compliment Dubya on recognizing his limitations through his diverse appointments of many positions thus far of people with extensive managerial governmental records. Sincerely, hope you and your family are having a Happy Holidays.... z ============================= ======================= Summary of Email and Board Input ===================================== Email #1: "..I vote not to allow Cantwell... We don't need him and I don't want him there....Legitimate discussion is quite a relief..." yes or no? NO ============================================================ Email #2: "I urge you not to invite Dixie [Cantwell] to the private TIGI board. He bears the greatest responsibility for the deterioration of the main board....Don't let this board become a zoo." yes or no? NO ====================================================== Email #3: "NO for admission ...Participation will decline and the board will lose it's ... function..." yes or no? NO ======================================================== Email #4: "...glad the board exists as an alternative to the decayed board dominated primarily by rich's need for attention...(guess you know my vote by the preceding sentence)..." yes or no? NO =============================================== Removed Post #299, Sunday, 30 Jul 2000 at 10:53 PM EDT "I say he should be kept at the zoo as he is the primary reason for it being the zoo. When I want to read his stuff, I go over there." yes or no? NO ======================================================== Removed Post #301, Sunday, 30 Jul 2000 at 11:40 PM EDT "...I'd say give him a shot. Odds are he can't post meaningful dialogue in more than two posts without resorting to calling someone names. When he does, boot him...." yes or no? yes but with conditions ===================================================== Removed Post #302, Monday, 31 Jul 2000 at 1:35 AM EDT "...my vote would be to exclude him. I feel he has been working to the detriment of the company... Not the kind of people I like to have around..." yes or no? NO ================================================ Post #8408, Main "TIGI" Thread, Monday, 31 Jul 2000 at 7:54 AM EDT "I think you should let Dixie into the rehab facility. But I do disagree about the quantity. The only reason someone needs to post more than 3-4 times a day is if they feel a strong need to win a pyssing contest.... I hope you deal with violations promptly." yes or no? yes but with conditions ===================================================== Removed Post #304, Monday, 31 Jul 2000 at 3:18 PM EDT "...I have to agree with mrEzE's post in it's entirety. Dixie definitely has an agenda that is not pro TIGI..." yes or no? NO ======================================================== Removed Post #305, Monday, 31 Jul 2000 at 3:39 PM EDT "...Rich has done more to damage the psyche of the TSIG threads than any other poster. I actually believe that his pumping has been far more damaging than his bashing...' '...it is my preference that he not be allowed to post even one message on this board, ever." yes or no? NO ===================================== Removed Post #306, Monday, 31 Jul 2000 at 3:54 PM EDT Well stated. I can think of no benefit that would be served by allowing him to post here. yes or no? NO ===================================== 11 People decided to express their feelings and thoughts regarding Cantwell's participation on the thread: "Tigi for Sane and Sincere Participants" From the synopsis of comments above, the popular vote was 9 vs 2 with 9 against and 2 for with conditions. The 9 were vehemently against and the 2 were very luke warm for and stated pre-conditions. So is this a "jury" or a majority decision? Stay tuned for the decision.. This post along with the decision will be [was] removed on Friday, August 4, at approx. 10:00 PM.