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: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (72330)	7/2/2001 10:12:35 PM
From: If only I'd held	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

I beleive a "statement" and a "calculation" are 2 different things as well. A gallant effort...but my vote for the prize money is...no beans today. Sorry CaptainSEC....keep on him though. Personally, I dare Anthony to offer a prize to anyone that catches him mis-spelling...hehe.

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (72330)	7/2/2001 10:21:32 PM
From: Joe Lyddon	Respond to of 122087

BUT. . . BUT. . . but. . . but. . . You didn't make that clarification in your original 'challenge' did you? Besides, the keywords were "knowingly", etc. but, it appears, based on your reply, that you knew what you were doing. . . Now what. . .? Tony, when you make challenges of such enormous rewards, perhaps you should spend a little to have your lawyer read it before you publish it. <grin> But. . . But. . . but. . . but. . . That's not what I meant at all! I don't think anyone is going to HOLD you to it or contact THEIR lawyers about it. . . . . . but it sure drew a little attention didn't it?! You're doing good. . . keep it up! Just in fun! Joe

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (72330)	7/2/2001 10:32:13 PM
From: CaptainSEC	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 122087

LOL right back at ya! YOu got me I lied there reveenues are actually zero so I did give them an extra .00000001 dollars in their favor.. yep...i said i'd give you that one. The share counts and price are all errors in their favor. As you yourself just stated, those are still errors though, aren't they. Who they favor, if anyone, is irrelevant, as is your source, as is your motivation in 'rounding off'. The report doesn't say rounded off, nor that the numbers are from Bloomberg.May I remind me of your original post? 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. 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... I really shouldn't even dignify your attempt to change the rules after being defeated with a response. However, I firmly believe that going directly to SEC filings for share count information is EXACTLY what due diligence facts are. 'Due diligence facts' are not numbers parroted from the last Bloomberg update, they are numbers that you dig up by diligently reading. Great examples of this are with old friends ETYS and KOOP financing...the details of which were only available by going into the filings and poring over nebulously worded agreements designed to sound like they wouldn't induce shareholder losses. 'Due diligence facts' are things like Liviakis and company controlling a huge chunk of BIOP stock, which you get from reading filings, not from Bloomberg. The fact is, your share count is wrong. It doesn't matter where you pulled it from. The fact is, the market cap is also wrong. You've explained where the error came from, rationalized it; justified it; but that doesn't change the fact that it is still an error; an 'untruthful statement'!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets just take a closer look at that Bloomberg number that you claim is the source for erroneous share counts and price and market cap: DETAILED QUOTE SLPH Sulphco Inc Shares (Millions) 23.288 quote.bloomberg.com Compare to insidetruth.com numbers: FINANCIAL DATA and STATS: Shares Outstanding: 22,700,000 my sources are pulled off of Bloomberg the only source I use for share counts and mkt cap and closing prices By that reasoning, your report should have stated that there were 23.288 million shares outstanding (or whatever level of detail your Bloomberg terminal provides. I can't imagine that their share count number is different for subscribers from the figure given on their free website, but please correct me if i'm wrong. I can't offer you 10k though) So, thats still price, share count, market cap errors. (and the freebie Gross Revenues error). With all the recent discussions of integrity and truthfulness around here, I would think that you would be happy to uphold your side of the bargain and show everyone what an honest guy you are. Frankly, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that you are trying to welch.

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (72330)	7/4/2001 5:30:19 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