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: mmmary who wrote (72409)	7/3/2001 10:41:45 PM
From: 10K a day	Respond to of 122087

intentional material fact Facks is Facks, Mam... I say give it to him. LOL!

To: mmmary who wrote (72409)	7/3/2001 11:03:05 PM
From: CaptainSEC	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 122087

I can't stand the thought of reposting all of the prior comments and qualifications and whatnot concerning the nature of the challenge. I hate reading those posts :) Instead, I'll just say this; there were 2 challenges in the original post: the first to find one untruthful statement, and the second to find an intentional mis-statement. The former was worth 10,000 while the latter was worth 100,000. In the renewal of the challenge post and several other posts referring back to the original one, the re-iteration is a challenge to find an untruthful statement. Any untruthful statement (except for errors in financial calculations, stock structure, and share price quotes, which were all ridiculed with much scorn and derision when I pointed them out). My latest 2 submissions are both untruthful; inaccuracies. I doubt very much that they were intended, they're just the probable result of assumptions and not very careful reading of SEC filings and press releases. The 2 errors: SLPH report claimed that the company was called Filmworld until April 27th, 2001. It was not; April 27th was the date of the symbol change. Filmworld ceased to be on or about April 9th. SLPH report also claimed that Steve Muth was sanctioned by NASDR regarding CHST. That is also not correct, according to NASDR records as of day. The question of intention is immaterial, because that is related to the 100,000 challenge, which was not renewed. I think i've more than amply satisfied the conditions of the renewed challenge, don't you?