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 : The DD Maven -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: waitless who wrote (22)	12/1/2005 1:53:15 AM
From: creede	Respond to of 736

Are you Mark Astrom? ROTFLMAO LOL <GGG> I kill me! GodBless-ND cris

To: waitless who wrote (22)	12/1/2005 2:05:51 AM
From: creede	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 736

waitless - perhaps the best way would be if you would write a post that teaches us your methods(with links) to do our own research and therefore, draw our own conclusions. You really are too good an asset to the team to spend too much time focusing on the bad apples(not to be confused with MAPPLE/Matt the IR guy at apple...think HISC and PLNI). I guess it's kinda along the "teach a man to fish" thinking. Your point is pretty much equal with share structure and is something we must address soon. This point is one of the key reasons to go to a policy of only investing in flamingo's that "show their feathers".I am thinking we will go a long way towards weeding out companies that like to operate in the dark. They know we will see what they are doing and yell foul! However, we still need to know how to do a thorough background check to catch the ones may unveil. GodBless-ND c

To: waitless who wrote (22)	12/1/2005 3:16:54 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 736

Agree with you that often the CEO's are near the end of the line as far as being the real scammers. Attorneys, promoters, finance people crop up more and more. I'm going to post about Cornell that is finally getting investigated. I found a pattern with a law firm that is often involved with shells, Baum Law Firm. They made a big deal about cutting debt. However, they charged I thought very high rates as fees for their work, which was largely boilerplate. As the principal took over the shell and was basically negotiating with himself, the net result was that he wound up with enough shares to dictate the terms of a reverse merger that pretty much wiped out shareholders. I know if I come across that name again, I'll be wary. The old symbol was ABCI, forget the new one, but I won't forget the name of the law firm.