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.

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

To: CaptainSEC who wrote (72329)	7/2/2001 9:42:13 PM
From: Anthony@Pacific	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 122087

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I gottta hand it to ya !! you made me laugh YOu got me I lied there reveenues are actually zero so I did give them an extra .00000001 dollars in their favor.. The share counts and price are all errors in their favor. What i meant is any of the due diligence facts not the fluctuating stuff pulled of the filings... that is the spirit of the challenge... But an absolute awesome try, the price was based on the clsoing price of the 25th the day I actually wrote the report and I almost always round down in my shar calculations, to give the companies the benefit of the doubt and my sources are pulled off of Bloomberg the only source I use for share counts and mkt cap and closing prices

To: CaptainSEC who wrote (72329)	7/3/2001 12:19:29 AM
From: mmmary	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Captain SEC: you wanted the l0K? I thought you were just being sarcastic and joking around with your post about the challenge. I personally thought the challenge had to do with the main issues of whether or not parts of this company are suspect. After reading the report and SEC docs and doing a few google and 10kwizard searches, the report seems to be fine to me. Mind you, I did not do tons of research here. Just checking basic facts. If I wanted to get picky, I bet I can pull apart just about any SEC doc and find flaws, typos, mathetical, grammatical errors. That's pretty easy.

To: CaptainSEC who wrote (72329)	7/3/2001 2:15:35 AM
From: asianflower	Respond to of 122087

Hey Captain........ Do you comprehend English? Facts, material facts, false statements....not rounded off numbers! If all you can come up with are some immaterial discrepancies, then Anthonys report must be pretty damn accurate. But I guess it is morons like you that allow scams to perpetuate themselves.....lol.. Good work Anthony, looks like another one is going to soon bite the dust!

To: CaptainSEC who wrote (72329)	7/4/2001 5:29:56 PM
From: Henk Wondergem	Respond to of 122087

ABSOLUTELY!! Don't back off!! Stand your ground!! This is getting a good soap opera, with English, Grammar, Math, Integrity, Etc. Etc overtones. We need some excitement!! I can hardly wait for the next blow, this is terrific. It's the 4th of July, lets see some fireworks!!! The details we ALL KNOW that SLPH is a scam!! ragingbull.lycos.com PS without spoiling this side-line opera, I feel the two of you should pull resources for the next part 2!! And after that.... There must be many SLPH's around. Good luck to BOTH cc A@P CaptainSEC