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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael d kugler who wrote (13646)	11/5/1997 6:08:00 PM
From: MichaelDP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

No offense Michael but steping back and seeing what as been revealed lately is the main reason i have become very aggresive it getting my certs not to mention trying to scrape together some more risk income and trying to buy more!

To: michael d kugler who wrote (13646)	11/5/1997 6:11:00 PM
From: douglas hicks	Respond to of 55532

The pressure here must be tremendous, i suggest some R and R,like everybody getting naked but for their shorts and party till moanin, err morning.

To: michael d kugler who wrote (13646)	11/5/1997 6:14:00 PM
From: Jack of All Trades	Respond to of 55532

"Be very, very careful" Silly Wabbit :>))

To: michael d kugler who wrote (13646)	11/5/1997 6:15:00 PM
From: Just My Opinion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Mike: I don't think this is the normal situation for a shorter. Usually, all they have to do is meet the cash requirements, true. However if I, or anyone else wants their certificates, which is perfectly legal, I don't think meeting cash requirements is acceptable. Please correct, if I am wrong. TIA...al

To: michael d kugler who wrote (13646)	11/5/1997 6:18:00 PM
From: Eric Maggard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

OK, stepping back.... If Mork only had a 100,000 share short position, why wouldn't he just sit back quitely and let this thing fall back? He could have not done anything and easily covered in the first run-up and made his money back shorting it back down. So, we are of the agreement that he is still short. So, if he is sueing for price manipulation, what amount is he going after? $300,000 to cover his losses? Lawyer bills could be more than that. $2 Mil for anquish? Maybe, but who would pay? Why is he looking to protecting us when he is known to be short in this stock? Even if he was taken by the management, why go after us on this thread? Put up a false web site on OVIS/RMIL? Try to get their name and say they are not in existance? IMO, note the absense of the H, I think that he is still quite a bit short and trying to cover whatever way he can. IMO, I don't think that he has our interest in mind. No way when money is concerned. Eric P.S. About the missing H, IMO, if you say you are humble, you are probably not.

To: michael d kugler who wrote (13646)	11/5/1997 6:23:00 PM
From: Kurt N	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

You are full of it. They have to cover. Kurt

To: michael d kugler who wrote (13646)	11/5/1997 6:37:00 PM
From: Wskymn99	Respond to of 55532

"Mork doesn't have to cover his 100,000 share short position. He simply has to come up with the margin to keep it open." -WRONG That would be the case if only the price was rising. However, CERTIFICATES have been requested and CERTIFICATES must be delivered. In order to get a certifiacte, you MUST BUY! A margin call will not deliver the certificates to the rightful owner. As far as what has been revealed over the last few days, .....huh? What do you mean? In the last few days we have a established a direct link between the slander and Mork. That is grounds for a class action lawsuit if he causes our price to decline. By squeeze or by court, he will indeed pay us for our shares. And another thing, quit with the "Riley's lying" BS. A conversation with Mork doesn't prove Riley was lying. If you have proof then lay it on the table. I can prove that Mork is trying to manipulate the price downward. We have evidence to support. Why should anybody believe what he says? Including yourself? What makes you think that that shortselling, manipulating, company destroyer is telling YOU the truth? -BGOODY

To: michael d kugler who wrote (13646)	11/5/1997 7:09:00 PM
From: Shel W.	Respond to of 55532

Michael: Please don't advise me what do in relation to this or any other investment. Your credibilty is nonexistent and I find it offensive that you post your IMPORTANT message for all to read as though you're here to help us. Give it a rest and concede defeat. You've earned it.

To: michael d kugler who wrote (13646)	11/5/1997 7:58:00 PM
From: Rashid Garuba	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 55532

Mike, Imagine this scenario (FORGET RMIL, RILEY,DM....). Since you are a broker, your answer will be helpful. Public Company A has a float of 1mil shares. I have managed to buy 1.5mil shares on the open market (this is possible). I call you, my broker, and say, I want my shares in certificate form. Mike, what happens? (no references to any issues of this thread, please) Please research this if necessary. Rashid

To: michael d kugler who wrote (13646)	11/5/1997 9:37:00 PM
From: Roo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 55532

Saint Michael- Y'know, once upon a time I thought you were here to help small investors who may be naive to the ways of the penny market. Today I realize your motivation is a bit less altruistic and a bit more egotistical. Seems your proud and much lauded position of "fraud buster" is at stake here and you will stoop to anything to prove yourself right. As you have pointed out many times, you called fraud correctly at GIFS, and you called fraud correctly at SEXI... what an embarrassment to have made that call at RMIL and be wrong. You have stepped over the line however in the last two day's posts, and it is clear that your main (or perhaps only) interest is in protecting your fraud-busting reputation regardless of the consequences to others. How convenient it would be if the cartel heeded your call, made the "executive decision," and sold at this price that might "represent a decent profit." Your utter lack of concern for the consequences of that action is the flaw that exposes your very personal and very egotistical motives here. Just how many shares could the cartel unload before this stock would be trading under $.25 ? 200K? 500K?? (market always seems to go down a lot easier than it goes up don't you agree?) So let's say a few cartelers bail at the open. A few more smell the bail and drop their positions as well. By 10:30am the stock is below a buck, and by 11:00 it has bottomed at 15-19 cents. Now what do we have???? How about a positively jubilant fraud-busting Mike Kugler pointing to the morning's trading as "evidence" and loudly proclaiming his righteousness, and the rest of the investors looking on in stupefaction and conceding that you were right all along... A pretty pitiful return on YOUR investment wouldn't you say Mike??? (Not all the investments here are made with money). Well I've got a new motivation for holding onto my shares of RMIL, and that is a desire to prove you wrong that is as powerfull, obsessive, and irrational as your desire to prove yourself right! Have a nice day. -R#42