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: Michael P. Weber who wrote (33876)	1/6/1998 5:36:00 PM
From: Riley G	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Escrow for RMCW merger 11,484,750 (Rule 144 Legend) Insider 144 shares 1,200,000 (Approx.) Total public float 2,171,081 (Approx. Shares) 14,855,831 Total O/S issued Reported shares held 3,050,012 Estimated shorts on list (878,931) Called Shares 2,582,277 Received Shares 2,132,652 Public shares left 38,429 Estimated

To: Michael P. Weber who wrote (33876)	1/6/1998 5:50:00 PM
From: Buster	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 55532

Weber, you are one to talk about spreading onesided information. Why would Kugler apologize to you without verifying your statements. Why keep information from this board? Both you and Riley always seemed to have a hidden agenda. I have information and you don't nanny nanny nanny... Buster:)

To: Michael P. Weber who wrote (33876)	1/6/1998 5:54:00 PM
From: (Bob) Zumbrunnen	Respond to of 55532

You know, that constant reposting of the same stuff is an extremely annoying waste of bandwidth. Perhaps I've got this wrong, but it sure looks to me like you're saying that if Kugler apologizes, you'll show him why he should apologize. And all you'll do if he apologizes is claim that he's not trustworthy because he's made a mistake. I still don't see where he erred, but that's for you folks to figure out, not me. What I do know, though, is that you people have a tendency to highlight where others have been wrong and hold it up as a reason they should not be believed now. I happen to recall an incident in which Mike was very wrong about something, but that incident also showed me that he does Due Diligence with an almost religious fervor. Something I've seen in very few people. Because he's been observably correct better than 90% of the time with his calls, and because he does DD that is orders of magnitude more than I'm willing to do, yet shares his findings freely, I tend to respect him and his opinions. Hate him if you like, but it's not wise to dismiss him out of hand or try to convince others they should do so.