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: FTJoe who wrote (19500)	11/18/1997 4:14:00 PM
From: slotman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 55532

ALL: Why would Morgan give an ordinary shareholder information so fragmented that it could only cast more doubt in the minds of investors. Now, either Morgan is an ingnoramus (I doubt it) or something else is wrong with this report. As a diehard optimist I prefer the later. I would like PUGS to call Morgan and verify the phone call that was reported.

To: FTJoe who wrote (19500)	11/18/1997 4:20:00 PM
From: Typhoon	Respond to of 55532

If you recall, in regards to my question, after I asked it enough times - 4 days later he indicated that he had alread answered "NO". However, when I checked back through all the posts between the time I first asked and the time he indicated he had already given me a "NO" answer, there was no such "NO" answer in response to my question. So, theoretically, he never really answered the question, only indicated he had already answered when he had not, and when it comes right down to it, he could always lie and say he was referring to a different question altogether. When I asked him to verify that he was, in fact stating that his answer to the specific question (link included) was NO, he did not verify. Seems like a simple thing to do for someone who posts continually (answer simply and when unable to answer simply, verify the answer he implied he made but in fact did not). Instead, he'll probably just make more sarchastic references to my chess analogy. Questions, questions. If anyone is going to get on my case or MichaelDP's case about wasting bandwidth with questions, then why the heck are they not getting on s martin's case as well?