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.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jon Tara who wrote (17622)	5/26/2003 4:05:35 PM
From: mmmary	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32871

From INSP point of view I'd also think that they should have filed an 8K denoting sale or purchase of asset, change in ownership of asset... I see no filing or PR. I would think that insp would want the world to know that they no longer are responsible for SI. With all the lawsuits, subpoenas, headaches, bills...I'd think they'd want to tell people that ihub now is the owner. Of course if they didn't really sell it and perhaps just traded SI for some shares in ihub and still own part of SI, maybe that's a different story. As they just filed a quarterly, we will have to wait to find out what really happened, if they ever say anything. SI was such a small part of insp.

To: Jon Tara who wrote (17622)	5/26/2003 7:47:46 PM
From: wlcnyc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32871

Jon, "I think she's perfectly reasonable." I would like to believe that your above remark about mmmary relates only to the issue of notification of change of ownership. It might be reasonable to expect notification of a change of ownership. However, I certainly would never refer to mmmary as being "reasonable." As usual, she has cloaked what may be a reasonable expectation, with her constant, unreasonable (excessive), accusations, ranting, whining, etc. All JMO, of course. Bill p.s. It's been years since we've exchanged "ideas." :)