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 : IATV - ACTV Interactive Television -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pluvia who wrote (1209)	12/8/1997 10:29:00 PM
From: art slott	Respond to of 4748

Steve, According to Actv they had no intention of paying WBN for recommending their stock To my knowledge this has not changed. Nobody works for free. If WBN's stocks due poorly they will lose future business. They have good reason to promote companies that have alot of promise. Their business model depends on it. I discovered Actv before I ever heard of Westergaard. Art

To: Pluvia who wrote (1209)	12/8/1997 10:37:00 PM
From: MarcG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4748

Steve, Thanks for your post concerning Westergaard. I'd like to point out that if what you say is true, then the "paid promotion" didn't work very well since the stock was less than lackluster, trading much less than average daily volume and flat to a level down, on the day of Abella's publication. If HEB spends its money on corporate advertising perhaps it would be better served elsewhere. However, your post does sound like you've got some personal ax to grind against Westergaard, and I'd suggest you try something more constructive that addresses the facts of HEB's lead product, Ampligen, which you can find at many "non-promotional", medical and scientific sites on the web. Frankly, I think most investors in HEB are waiting to hear about FDA approval for expansion of its phase III CFS trial and/or other medical developments, and if Mr. Abella can provide any information towards that end through his efforts, then I am appreciative. Your "red flag warning" is redundant since the inherent degree of increased risk in this type of issue is obvious.

To: Pluvia who wrote (1209)	12/8/1997 10:43:00 PM
From: Jim Mulis	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4748

Pluvia, It seems you and Mr. Westergaard have had a run-in before. It will be interesting to see his response to your accusations. I guess this is what we call the free exchange of ideas. Is this a great country or what? I think all of the regulars on this thread have a good understanding of this particulsr stock and Mr westergaard's opinions aren't going to sway us particularly. Jim Mulis

To: Pluvia who wrote (1209)	12/9/1997 2:34:00 AM
From: Westergaard	Respond to of 4748

Dear Ed Doell: Thanks for the heads up. As you may know, I uncovered the identity of Pluvia (see the SI thread Pluvia vs Westergaard) and forced him to stop writing twisted information about Premier Laser (PLSIA). As it turned out, we were able to establish that he has or has had a business relationship with a competitor of PLSIA as a distributor of products and owner/lessor of products and that he had been mounting a concerted effort to discredit the company for purposes of advancing his own business interests by his postings on SI and by calling dentists and threatening them that they would be subject to violation of patent laws if they purchased PLSIA's products. PLSIA issued a cease and desist letter and Pluvia has been quiet on PLSIA ever since as far as I know. Pluvia was misrepresenting himself to members of SI by presenting himself as investment interested when his motives were to promote his business interests. To put it simply, we were being used. Meanwhile, his derogatory statements last summer about PLSIA's products have been proven wrong by the fact that sales this quarter are expected to be in the $9mm range vs $3mm in the September quarter. As to his statements about Westergaard Broadcasting Network or any of our channels, it is not true that we receive $30,000 for promoting companies or any fees or stock for that matter for promoting companies. We have from time to time accepted 144 restricted stock in payment of a fee for co-hosting our Waldorf Conferences. 144 stock must be held for two years from issuance and is commonly used by corporations to pay vendor bills in lieu of cash. We hold no shares in ACTV. Our Waldorf Conferences are now in their 21st year. Companies are invited to attend with one letter and one follow up phone call. Some do, some don't, but certainly no one would expect us to pick up the expenses of these conferences which run circa $40,000. As for his statement about an alleged SEC investigation, you should know that the SEC has no jurisdiction over our publications which are Internet "zines" protected by the 1st Amendment. The SEC lost the battle to regulate financial publications such as Barron's, Individual Investor, etc. 30 years ago when it tried in 1967 to claim regulatory authority over The Wall Street Transcript and got its head handed in Federal Court. Publisher Dick Holman deserves a Zenger award (remember Peter Zenger the Philadephia printer of revolutionary times) for standing up on that occasion by refusing to respond to the SEC's subpoenas. In 40 years of publishing research and analysis on speculative stocks, no one has ever questioned my integrity nor have I ever been the subject of an SEC investigation or regulatory matter of any sort. From time to time I have received inquiries from the SEC as to the nature of my business and have always cooperated by providing information such that they fully understand the character of our business and have made it clear that we do not fall within their jurisidiction and that position has never been challenged. Again, thanks for alerting me to the Pluvia posting. It is pure slander. As for whether our research is of value, GO TO wbn.com and make up your own mind. John