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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (28064)	11/22/1997 11:54:00 AM
From: ddl	Respond to of 35569

Scam you can't say, a Con is more appropriate because they have some gold here, but nothing close to what they said they had. It's with the crooks that you can make a bang on your buck. If it's not suspended and these same guys are going to be arround for a few years, Richard, I can guarrantee you that you can make some money buying IPM at its comming lows. :-)

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (28064)	11/22/1997 11:54:00 AM
From: John Wetterau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Richard, All, is there any way to force management to tell us what is happening? Can directors be removed by special election? Would a lawsuit supply enough leverage to get them to be straightforward? This is absurd. Shareholders own the company; management works for us! How can they get away with silence? There must be some mechanism that would enable us to get the truth and perhaps preserve value. We have given management the benefit of the doubt for months and gotten smacked for it. Why keep waiting for them to tell us what they feel like? Why not do something? John

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (28064)	11/22/1997 1:00:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Richard, except that in phone discussions with CL (oh almost a year ago), when I pointed to him the old Twain note (you need not have a good memory when you tell the truth) and the continuing change in the story he was getting, he should have at least attempted to find the truth. A lot of people on this thread followed his advice beiving he indeed knew information not known to the rest of us. I have often been asked, why don't you call management, and have replied that short of outright lies, it is management and PR's function to put forward the best possible scenario and as long as they can hide behind the "plausible deniability" argument. I know not how this saga will play out and to what extent "plausible deniability" will work. It is clear that the ambulance chasers are not going to go after this one (not enough money to be made), but the SECD might still look into what happened. For the time being, it is not even getting into the "Hall of the Multihorned Table", too much risk of a severe downward spiral after the short are finished covering. Zeev Zeev