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.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jimmy who wrote (5989)	12/25/1997 2:06:00 PM
From: Thomas L. Lewis	Respond to of 10368

Just wanted to let you know that there is someone out there that would echo your last post. It was a tough lesson but I'm ready to move on. Merry Christmast to everyone and I hope Rodney will be back soon. I,like everyone else, am concerned about his health.

To: jimmy who wrote (5989)	12/25/1997 2:34:00 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

and, Oh, by the way... I do wonder if that whole business about the imminent NMS Listing was just part of management's campaign to meet the warrant call requirements. I mean, did they really apply for NMS listing, unaware that they did not meet the requirements? Umm! Are they that dumb? or are they more clever than a fox? If management stated in a public forum, i.e. SI, that the application was made when in fact it wasn't they would have been begging for a lawsuit. I'd like to hear JTO's explanation on this - probably that the rules changed while their application was pending, which they did - but it's a long leap from misjdugment and perhaps bad luck to malice. Let's try to be fair in our critiques. I still think management handled the warrant call badly. With a good warrant price I would have converted my warrants instead of selling. But be careful about looking for sinister conspiracies which are unlikely to exist for long. Or maybe my three years living in the Balkans gave me a knee-jerk reaction to conspiracy theories, which seem to be genetically imprinted at birth there. We can do better than that. Merry Christmas everyone.

To: jimmy who wrote (5989)	12/26/1997 2:15:00 AM
From: JakeSki	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

>> You probably echo management's sentiments. But you are dead >> wrong. Your logic is that BNGO holders are investors - in for the >> long haul while BNGOW holders were merely short term >> speculators. Well, I have news for you: there are probably more >> speculators in BNGO now than ever before. You base this statement on what? Fact? Guessing? >> Who do you think bought all those warrants from us "speculators". I think the MM's bought the warrants to covert their shorting of the common. >> Don't believe me? Let me ask this: how many current investors >> would continue to hold firm if BNGO shot back up to $9 or $10 >> next week? and how much short selling do you think you would >> see then? I think you would see a lot of shorts - I would probably short it myself. BNGO is volatile enough that a good TA read could make a decent profit on the ups and downs. But I wouldn't sell the shares I already have. I am going all the way to the bank with them. My original point had to with the rights of warrant holders. Warrant holders can't be loyal long term investors - it just doesn't make sense. How can you be loyal to something that will someday be worthless? You can't buy and hold warrants (as we have just lived through). Whether or not current BNGO holders are loyal or not is anyone's guess. I wont add to the confusion by making any 'probably' statements here. -- GeorgeP