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: JHP who wrote (72351)	7/3/2001 12:30:47 PM
From: kl_xxxxx	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 122087

Tony, Tony, Tony... I wasn't going to lower myself to your level, but since you've got a lot of people interested in what you wrote and you seem to want to give this money away so much, I figured I'd stroll down memory lane. We can start with a few posts I did over on RB under SLPH. The first being 6/26 @7:58 EDT. Here, I mentioned share counts as well, but since you are using other references, I'll just go on to my next error. ragingbull.lycos.com On Tuesday, 6/26 @ 9:39PM EDT, I posted what I believe is the first reference to your report that truly represents non-factual information. See RB post #601 ragingbull.lycos.com In this post, I made reference to the fact that you didn't include anything else on Clean Fuels Technology, also a Gunnerman company that is in fact still in business and making money. Your report seemed to have stopped around 1996 for Clean Fuels and A-55. I believe your LAST statement under Gunnerman states "The reality is Gunnerman seems to have had no formal training in fuels technology and all actual work experience involves deals that have blown up into such successful ventures that no trace of them exist any longer". Thats $10K right there. Another statement in your report, also about Caterpillar said "And as the ultimate indication of their confidence in the technology, on October 24th, 1996, Caterpillar and Gunnerman ended their joint venture, with A-55 retaining all patents and technology after the usual litigation". Thats another $10K, they continued the relationship in August 2000, as referenced in a press release I sited in the RB post. Next, we have one more mistruth, for the big money, $100K. See post 626 from June 29th at 1:57AM EDT. ragingbull.lycos.com In this post on RB, I included links to the MIT Lemelson award site which includes a short history of Gunnerman. From Tony's report, he says "Interestingly, while Gunnerman mentions all the great things said about him by the Lemelson program, if you notice on the bottom of the website, they say that all information listed was provided by A-55 and they cannot guarantee its accuracy. So basically Gunnerman's Company patted Gunnerman on the back". As I said in my expose, the only part of the bio of Gunnerman that was "provided by A-55" as stated in the bio was the following statement: "Gunnerman's fuels could reduce pollutant emissions an average of 50% while improving efficiency of vehicles over 25%*" The Lemelson site asterisk'ed the above statement, due to the fact that they weren't able to validate the claim. Beyond that, it doesn't look like A-55 provided "ALL" the information, as Tony's report said. A true mistatement of the facts, since they were spelled out right in front of you. Cha-ching. Oh, and one final comment, just to throw an extra $10K into the pot, Tony's report said "We were able to obtain no information on how "inventors of the week" were selected." References to 2 links ON THE bio/history page for Gunnerman take to you the Lemelson General Info page and to the FAQ. Those pages describe HOW they select "inventors of the week". $10K more. I come up with $130K. KL

To: JHP who wrote (72351)	7/3/2001 12:41:30 PM
From: Joe Lyddon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Hey! Keyword "knowingly". . . Was the information, available at 'post' time, somewhat incomplete whereby Tony posted the facts as he 'knew' them to be at that time?! Hence "knowingly" is a very important word in this can of worms. . . Plus what information was available at THAT time. . . can;t go back, look at it, and base anything that happened in the future from that point. . . We all know that hindsight is 20-20 . . . Joe