SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (72297)7/2/2001 1:05:07 AM
From: Anthony@Pacific  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 122087
 
this is fitting:

SLPH...stale faker..whats the difference?

To:Dale Baker who wrote (3226)
From: Anthony@Pacific Monday, Jul 2, 2001 12:59 AM
Respond to of 3239

I just wanted to come over here and tell you , that you are more of a dick today then you were last year, quite an accomplishment for such a below average looking dude. Just be careful and dont try to blow any of your fellow workers to smithereens when the reality of your insignificance comes crashing down around you like molten smegma erupting from a foreskin reinforcement task team.
Im sure that you will be so happy some day that clowns will erupt from the ant hills in your lawn.

...... oh gee.... whats it like to be so ignored and so insignificant ??

what happend to your 50% losses thread?

what happend to your super duper caped wonder duo with Dr Ozone?

what happend to Masquerading on Wall Street.com as a scrotum lint ball?

what happend to just about everything you have ever done ..oh Stale one ??



To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (72297)7/2/2001 12:12:30 PM
From: mmmary  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 122087
 
tony: slph lawsuit

They filed in Nevada which is not the proper jurisdiction for the case. CA is as that is where you live. You could have it dismissed for this reason. In the meantime send in your preliminary discovery questions instantly. They have 30 days to respond with all the information you request which would of course include taking a peek under the tinfoil. They will not want to respond as I bet they have things to hide and will drop it right there. If they do come after you in the proper court which is CA, we have anti-slapp statute as I'm sure you know. You can get damages from them for starting such a frivolous lawsuit.

I still can't believe they were dumb enough to sue you. You'd think they'd do a little research about these types of cases and about you first. Very stupid on their part.



To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (72297)7/2/2001 4:47:26 PM
From: Brasco One  Respond to of 122087
 
only to get you a little excited about everyday life in the markets..<g>



To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (72297)7/2/2001 9:24:12 PM
From: CaptainSEC  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 122087
 
I accept your challenge.

Message #72297 from Anthony@Pacific at Jul 2, 2001 12:13 AM
A statement from the desk of A@P
I will pay $ 10,000.00 to anyone who is able to find one untruthfull statement in the SLPH report, PART 1 ,.
In addition I will retract the statement and amend it with a correction . I will pay $ 10,000.00 per statement. Furtermore rule 10b states that I must have knowingly made a false statement. If anyone can find one statement that I knowingly presented knowing it to be false , I will pay that individual $ 100,000.00.
I offer this challenge to the officers ( LOL ) at SLPH first. You have 48 hours from Monday mkt close.
I suggest that SLPH dismiss their action before I get an oppurtunity to get my hands on their aluminum foil wrapped contraption and I decide to devote some real time to this endeavor.
I made truthfull statements , I made a great report available to a few folks on the internet, I did a good thing and I resent the hell out of anyone who tries to take away from it's beauty by coloring the truth.
It annoys me that they can take what occurred in 1993 and try to fool people into thinking it has some bearing on the quality of the reserach or the veracity of my findings.
The challenge is on.

insidetruth.com
June 26, 2001
Attention All Business Editors:
Pacific Equity Investigations Initiates  SULPHCO,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SLPH ) with an Immediate Sell Long/ Sell Short Recommendation!

FINANCIAL DATA and STATS:

Shares Outstanding: 22,700,000
52-Week High/Low: 11.95 / 0.25
Closing price today: 3.15
Market Cap: 74 million
Gross Revenue Last FY: $ 0.00000000001 dollars
Total Net Income (Loss) Last QTR (460k)
Cash per share $0.04
Book Value $ 0.10

SLPH numbers from their last 10KSB/A of June 14,2001 : (link provided at bottom)

As of December 31, 2000, there were issued and outstanding 21,200,000
shares of the Company's authorized shares of common stock and as of March 6,
2001, there were 22,712,800 shares issued and outstanding.

The InsideTruth.com numbers are off by 12,800 shares. Furthermore, the closing price on the day the report was released (June 26,2001) was actually 2.69, not 3.15...
Granted, the closing price on June 25,2001 was 3.15, this is an understandable error which could be fixed by adding 'as of close, June 25,2001'; however, the report is specifically dated June 26.

However, there is no hairsplitting possible in the market cap calculations:

Here are the InsideTruth.com numbers:
Shares Outstanding: 22,700,000
Closing price today: 3.15
Market Cap: 74 million

22,700,000 x 3.15 = 71,505,000
22,712,800 x 3.15 = 71,545,320

To arrive at a market cap of 74 million, with the share count Insidetruth.com uses;

74,000,000/22,700,000 = 3.26

Alternatively, one could divide the stated market cap of 74,000,000 by the stated price of 3.15:

74,000,000/3.15 = 23,492,064 shares (rounded up to the nearest whole share)

The Insidetruth.com report has indisputably erroneous data in the share count, and market cap calculation.

I would also question the following figure, which was obviously posted tongue-in-cheek. However, in terms of pure truth...it also seems to be the most likely to have been posted with full knowledge of its inaccuracy:
Gross Revenue Last FY: $ 0.00000000001 dollars

So that is what, 3 factual errors? (market cap, share count, closing price) and 1 intentional mis-statement (Gross Revenue). I'll give you the Gross Revenue as part of the humorous slant to the report, which was excellent, and which I enjoyed greatly; likewise the closing price, which is obviously based on the close of June 25,2001 (still doesn't change the fact that it is a factual inaccuracy for a report dated June 26,2001). That still leaves 2 points in my favor.

Source:
realtimefilings.nasdaq.com



To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (72297)7/3/2001 11:28:04 PM
From: joseph krinsky  Respond to of 122087
 
I think you should have qualified your offer to say that the money would go to the first person that found the error.
As you wrote the offer, would I qualify (or everyone else) that finds the same error?

Message #72297 from Anthony@Pacific at Jul 2, 2001 12:13 AM

"A statement from the desk of A@P
I will pay $ 10,000.00 to anyone who is able to find one untruthfull statement in the SLPH report, PART 1 ,.
In addition I will retract the statement and amend it with a correction . I will pay $ 10,000.00 per statement. Furtermore rule 10b states that I must have knowingly made a false statement. If anyone can find one statement that I knowingly presented knowing it to be false , I will pay that individual $ 100,000.00."

It could get expensive the way you wrote it, (maybe?)