To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (8 ) 12/14/2001 2:54:03 PM From: Jim Willie CB Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 60 shallow understanding of objective opinions consider the "usual" method of obtaining info on a new stock like an IPO from a brokerage house, say Alex Brown let's say it is 1987 and Staples is looking to launch an IPO their underwriter was indeed Alex Brown so information is disseminated to promote the new stock AB comes out with ample info touting its financial prospects and AB earns 7% of the entire new float AB gets the best possible price, and even leftover shares they earn million$ in fees, almost zero risk do they put out negative info? do they explain fully all the risks? usually not if they do, most often risks are stated in boilerplate terms yet so many investors are silent about this fraud have you ever submitted a market order on a popular IPO? ugly fills now fast forward a couple years, and Staples wants to sell more stock or they want to issue corporate bonds who do they go to? Alex Brown, of course any other brokerage houses were probably smaller participants a relationship has been building between Staples and ABrown AB wants to make another eeeeassy 7% cut on a 2ndary issuance does AB mention any horrible news about the firm in previous years? no way, wouldnt be prudent, might risk new underwriting also, who do you think Staples will phone first on breaking news? ABrown, of course, so they can unload a quantity of shares and avoid a nice markdown in share price Mr Auric, you show kneejerk response to OTCJournal and to MarketByte LLC for their business your criticism seems shallow and lacking even contemptuous and nasty at least MB LLC puts a disclaimer on their notices their report seemed to me to be rather professional and objective so they earn for one year of work 100,000 shares in EYPSF is the SEC filing also fictitious? deceptive report on cashflow EBITDA? inaccurate on new drilling division? I have never seen a disclaimer by a brokerage house I am all too aware of their practice in "distribution" of stock shares in small lesser known companies to unsuspecting public when their real motive is to "dump those dogs"I challenge you to come up with actual deception by OTCJ.com on EYPSF hiring a Public Relations agency is not deceptive it is business same as advertising, brokerage, promotions just business sure, Energy Power Systems could embark on its own PR campaign call WallStJournal, NYTimes, Forbes, and 30 other publications but they might be criticized for lack of PR experience better to hire professionals is Sprint PCS to be condemned and decried for hiring TV ad agencies? how else does a small firm like Energy Power Systems achieve publicity? if you were a young firm, with integrity, with growth prospects, what would you do to gain publicity and promotion of your stock? also, Scott Fraser is also clear in his disclaimer I suspect he has invested in EYPSF himself so what if he has Elite Subscribers at $1000 a pop? did all his touted stocks in past years return to zero? I think not, surely some pooped out though Ultra Petroleum is still rolling onward and upward Fraser may have prudently sold with the shorts at 6 though but if he bought back at 4 to 4.7, then more power to him his lowered cost basis is only a byproduct of the treachery of shorts disclaimer: I have a small position in EYPSF, might add later thanks, Jim