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: Dan Merfeld who wrote (30774)	12/28/1997 6:34:00 AM
From: Ditchdigger	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 55532

Dan, what Riley,Pugs,smartin,Mike,Me,or You do/did is not relevent to your lost dollars.What the company did/will do, is,thats the bottomline. It appears there is more concern over the squabling,than the possibility of lossing your ass-DD PS: colder than a witches *** here,expecting an old fashion Nor'easter Tues-later really<g>

To: Dan Merfeld who wrote (30774)	12/28/1997 9:17:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 55532

Dan: I do not want to generalize, but you can check for yourself how I got involved in posting about a stock I never owned and when investigating it became less than enthused about it. In September, Roo "spammed" a large number of threads in which I was active. I came here and spent a weekend looking at the stock (and outdated SEC fillings), I made my point and from time to time look at what is happening here. Not being exactly positive on OVIS and distrustful of any organized campaign to influence the price of a stock with very weak fundamentals, I got the usual treatment of Nays from the Yeas (including just recently the publication of a private e-mail I have sent to few participants on threads I am active in, by Riley). Riley further promulgated a lie that I am a broker, which he knew very well I was not since in September I directed him, and he went to my website to show him what and who I am. At the time, Riley nor anyone else ever responded to the questions of the viability of the company's business and the valuation of the company, promulgating a myth that a company stock can be artificially inflated by short squeeze. He has and always has resorted to personal attack and character assasination. I have asked Riley in a very nice manner to ask the web mistress to remove the post in which he published a private e-mail of mine, but he refused (which of course is his right). It would be nice (but I do not expect it) if Riley would post an apology for lying about my profession. You ask why naysayers are at all posting if they do not own the stock? I know that in my case, I usually get to study a stock because someone recommends it as a "great play" (in the case of RMIL or OVIS as it was, it was Roo coming to the rescue). I can give you at least 10 examples of such situations were I was a naysayer and those that listened to me saved a bundle. I was a nay sayer on CTYS at 7, just in October, it is now about 1/2. I was a nay sayer on EXSO at 2 in Jan, it went to 1/8 were I bought and told the thread I bought, and I sold from 7/16 on and told the thread I did and it is now 1/8 again. I was a nay sayer on NAMX in January when it was at 1.5 or so and again at .75 it is now 1/8, I never became a bull. I was the $2 man on Aksef when at 4-6 and it dropped to the $2 range I became a raging bull and told the thread latter when it roared to 6 that I sold at 6. It is now 2. I was a nay sayer on AIPN at 2 and I was very wrong it went to 5 (I do make mistakes). I was a nay sayer on TTRIF when it run above 3 and the stock is now under 2. The people on the IPMCF and GPGI thread can tell you when I was negative and when positive since I have been both, sometimes I own the stock sometimes I do not. If you go on other threads and chant the virtue of your stock (we used to call that hype) why should you not expect visitors that do not own the stock to look into it and tell you their opinions? If, in lieu of personal attacks the yeas and nays concentrated on attempting to truly value the company rather than shout down any disenting voices, many newbies in this stock would have avoided horendous losses (the same applies for IPMCF where I was offered the nuce for claiming at 8 that the stock could drop below 2, it is now 1). Have all a Happy New Year, and of course, I expect Riley to do his due dili and find out that I am bold on the top of my head and actually nothing but a farmer (he would be right on both counts) and thus I have an agenda to see the stock going down, and of course you cannot believe a word of all I said. At least, I have a pretty good record of warning people in at least ten cases this year of major declines, and these are all here on the SI threads. Often enough, people say "thank you for warning me", and these "thank you"s is all the "compensation" I require. I could do without the incessant need to defend myself from defamations tactics as this thread is so adept at. Zeev

To: Dan Merfeld who wrote (30774)	12/28/1997 11:49:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Dan, You raise some interesting points. I think the RMIL story has become the focus of what is both good and bad about Silicon Investor and the Internet overall. I know that certain personalities who lurk here and have been primarily responsible for the outrageous claims surrounding RMIL continue to draw me. Let's face it. This has become personal for whatever reason. I myself have begun to derive a twisted, somewhat ghoulish joy out of slamming Riley and Pugs because I think they are responsible for encouraging most of you to invest you money in RMIL or to continue to hold your shares. However, RMIL shareholders continued to IGNORE and discount the scenarios that we were laying out for them given our combined experience with other stock frauds. But while I rather enjoy watching Pugs squirm under the burden of his own stupidity, I also have a genuine interest in learning the story "behind the story". I would like to know just how much misrepresentation Morgan and Breton has been guilty of. Call it ghoulish, but there is a lesson to be learned even from the worst experience. And you know, I think that since many of us have learned this lesson personally by being scammed ourselves we feel compelled to confront company managers attempting to perpetrate fraud upon others. If we don't then who will?? The Yeas?? And since we can't short this stock, then we have to settle for being disinterested Nays. I actually wish this stock had reached $10, then you would have had to deal with Nays with a vested interest since they would be openly short. If you can't handle disinterested Nays, what makes you believe open shorts posting out here would have been any easier to manage?? The repercussions of the RMIL story will be that future short squeezes will always be measured for merit against the RMIL story. They will be looked at for fundamentals and management ability. They will be scrutinized for accuracy in filings and releases. The overall effect will be that mismanaged companies will swim or sink on their own merits... not on manufactured hype stories from pumpsters and dumpsters. And you all played a part in history. Regards, Ron