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 : VLVT (was CSMA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tradesman who wrote (2297)	12/2/1997 7:39:00 AM
From: David Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11708

Trademan said AGAIN: They traded the lease rights, of questionable value to CSMA for stock of real "current value" WRONG, WRONG, WRONG AGAIN! Do you know what restricted shares are? I don't think so or you would never make false statements like this. They get no "current value" from restricted stock. They only have value after it becomes unrestricted. I will say it again: they are confident that the CSMA stock will appreciate over the next 12 months, that is why they are willing to take restricted shares of CSMA stock rather than cold cash for the property. Tradesman said: then execute the pre-arranged joint venture once the capital was obtained from the inflated stock price. Then M3 would pay less shares of restricted stock, more value at less cost to Coconino and its shareholders. That is what would happen if the stock price goes up before the deal is executed. So the investors of CSMA are holding less risk, contradicting your original thought. You are wrong again. Look, I am not going to follow up each and every one of your posts which are filled with inaccuracies and try to correct you. If you don't like the stock, get out. We don't need your irrational postings which are full of inaccuracies. To everyone else on the thread; what do you think of this guy? Do I have a point or do you want to keep hearing from him? David Smith

To: tradesman who wrote (2297)	12/2/1997 7:43:00 AM
From: Steven Durrington	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11708

So what you're telling us is that CSMA went around selling AdHatters air fresheners galore, seeking approval for a highly profitable class V disposal well, making deals with ERHC, aquiring a profitable, growing company like LPS, clearing their debts and is seeking to have CSMA on the NASDAQ exchange, so that they could inflate their share price and deliberately ruin the company on a highly dubious gas deal with nefarious Texan oil barons who also want to see the company dive, even though they now own a considerable amount of restricted shares in CSMA ??? To quote you.." it still smells like the program was to hype the stock, raise the price, then execute the pre-arranged joint venture once the capital was obtained from the inflated stock price" Ummmmm.... I don't get it. Instead of restructuring a small business and expanding operations to the point of considerable potential profits for the benefit of the company and shareholders alike, you're saying that CSMA artificially drove up their share price in order to make a bad deal and then go broke in the extended futile search for non-existent gas ?!? Perhaps my paraphraseology isn't quite accurate, and please correct me if I'm wrong. I have no problem with negativity or constructive criticism, but your post seems to be a little way out there when it comes to trashing CSMA. You're not a shorter by any chance, are you ? Curious, Durro