Basically aimed at all: Ok, most of us, IMHO, bought into this stock for the squeeze. And several or many posted (seems like a long time ago now) that the fundamentals didn't matter - in a squeeze - but the "law" of supply and demand does. In the post below speculation is made that, all of a sudden, the fundamentals are being questioned.
To: TopCat (32508 )
From: TideGlider
Saturday, Jan 3 1998 1:36AM EST
Reply # of 32590
Lotta BS....deflects the concentration on FLA...some have stated the fundamentals are not important. If they know anything at all perhaps they see a problem with fundamentals.
Just my take...
Well of course they are being questioned because, due to the halt, the fundamentals and the need for current financials are what can end the halt and get this stock back to trading. I can't see that anyone could doubt that. We shareholders are not sheep or liars or idiots. You nays question almost everything substantial that is posted. If you don't believe it or question it, why don't you just call the company yourselves?
I think Mtnres' post below was excellent because IMHO he states what is most likely on many if not all of our minds at this point in time:
To: TideGlider (32250 )
From: mtnres
Friday, Jan 2 1998 12:42PM EST
Reply # of 32590
Forgive my ignorance, but can someone explain why in this world of electronic banking it takes so freaking long to move funds? If I take a check from England to my bank, they shoot it right into my account and don't even put a hold on it. Granted, I am not depositing millions but 5-10 million is really not alot in the realm of the global economy.
Although, here, there is probably something "at work" here that we just don't know about yet.
Also excuse my ignorance, but why isn't the company working 24 X 7 to get us financials and other info instead of telling a few individual shareholders to "hold on a few more days?"
I think they probably have been doing just that. As evidenced by the post telling us the 8K was filed with the SEC Friday, Jan. 2.
As a long in this company, and all we have put up with thus far, we deserve better. We have assisted the company towards its goals of getting the price out of the gutter to a fair value and towards and AMEX move but all we keep hearing is "hold on." If their funds were frozen and they were in a bind, would they want to hear hold on? Absolutely not; I fully expect them to get us some real answers prior to the re-open on the 7th. If not, why should anyone hold a company that doesn't respond, belittles, and intimidates it's shareholders?
Again, it seems the company has been working on just that - to get everything together to provide the answers both that we seek and that are necessary to end the halt. At this point, all we can do is wait for the coming week and see.
Then there is the issue of the short squeeze, reality or pipedream? I am pretty sure the squeeze can't occur if the company is not longer trading as it is basically no longer in business which hinges on these guys giving us some real answers. Then again, so long as it trades, a squeeze could occur to a shell company.
There you have it NAYS, see, us longs really do understand something about the stock in which we invested. We are not mindless idiots led like sheep into the marketplace for slaughter based on internet ramblings of anyone. So why beat the same dead dog continuously? Call the company, hear what they do or don't have to say? Re-evaluate your positions and do what is right for you. That is all any of us big boys and girls will do, don't you think? The presence of the "Savoirs" here, especially the one's that claim to have no interest in the stock, only serve to support the notion that something is not right here. Why does someone "with no interest," have so much interest as to waste their entire lives, day in, day out, all day long, weekends and holidays included to preach the evils of this stock. Are these people independently wealthy? Do they not need to work real jobs during the day or night? The issues are out there, over and over again. Regardless of Riley, Pugs, Puhr, Brenton, the Pope or Charles Manson, I will do as others here, and make up my own mind and follow my own course. I kind of feel like a Coors "Beer-man," now, so I will step off my box and ask yet again, "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" or is that simply, "What's the point?"
Tide, not directed at you, necessarily, just a general observation that there are alot of intelligent people involved in this issue, as the Nays continue to call us idiots, how can they not expect a brash response and/or vice versa.
In this post below, Mtnres says what others of us have also said. No one's PERSONAL life matters to this stock and no one's PERSONAL life is relevant here. If anyone questions WHAT SOMEONE POSTS OR HOW THAT POST WAS STATED that's relevant IMHO to be clear on what the meaning is. A personal insult is inappropriate and uncalled for. Let's face it, we don't know each other in the same way that we know people we see every day. So a personal insult here is really made WITHOUT ANY BASIS IN KNOWN FACT. Personal insults only serve to stir up emotion and drive the focus of conversation away from the stock issues themselves. Perhaps that is the reason behind kugler's instigation of that tactic here - to stir up emotion and that survival instinct in all of us that causes a person to defend themselves? I don't really expect an answer to that question. I only know it would be nice and beneficial to the whole thread if that could be eliminated.
To: s martin (32227 )
From: mtnres
Friday, Jan 2 1998 11:30AM EST
Reply # of 32590
Who really cares whether it was Star Gate or Heaven's Gate? No fellow shareholders personal life really affects the value of this company and/or the banking/existance of the new funding. It is up to the company to produce real value here by there deeds, actions, and information releases. If there is truely an illegally sold short position on this stock uncovered by a shareholder, it really doesn't matter if that shareholder is the Pope or Charley Manson, does it?
I find it curious that kugler is generous, in this post below about what isn't reported in the DVBC filings, in allowing a "fine legal line" as to why Mork's lawsuit isn't included. By the same token, couldn't RMIL be using that same "fine legal line"? This is evidence of an obvious prejudice on kugler's part - allowing this "room" in interpretation and opinion as it relates to Mork and his companies but not allowing the same "room" to RMIL. Not that it was doubted, I'm sure, but kugler's objectivity and credibility is one-sided. The continuing fact too that kugler and smartin only ask questions and rarely if ever answer questions is highly questionable in and of itself. Quite frankly, I mostly just hit "Next" when I see their posts.
To: Ron Reece (32497 )
From: michael d kugler
Saturday, Jan 3 1998 1:40AM EST
Reply # of 32590
DVBC isn't short. Principals do not have to disclose their portfolios.
I have had some discussion with Mork regarding the lack of disclosure about lawsuits. There is, according to his attorneys, some fine legal line here. I understand where he is coming from, but I do have some problems with it. But, I'm not an attorney, so what do I know?
If the SEC has a problem with it, I'm sure they'll let him know as well.
kugler, do you intend to complain to the SEC about this exclusion in the DVBC filings as you complained to the SEC about RMIL? |
