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 : SIIS (Struthers Industries) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gpphantom who wrote (666)	1/11/1998 1:31:00 AM
From: gpphantom	Respond to of 709

Hey Gator, where ya been? Have you been hanging around the Yahoo board with a different alias?

To: gpphantom who wrote (666)	1/11/1998 11:12:00 PM
From: gpphantom	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 709

Regarding the first scenario where Struthers is allowed to pursue its business plan as conceived, the funding partner would buy out Winco's interest which gives it control with 52.6% ownership of Struthers. Since it has control there really isn't a need to purchase the float (our shares)at this time, i.e., work the leverage and see how things progress before buying the farm. Struthers becomes a subsidiary of the funding partner and we are the minority shareholders. As I see it, this scenario offers us the best chance to realize our investment's potential. This could result in rapid price appreciation once the stock resumes trading. The piece I'm not sure of is in the original deal with Winco. Once the amendment to Struther's certificate of incorporation was effected, the authorized shares of common were to increase and Winco was to be issued an additional 53,333,613 post-reverse split shares. This was to give Winco ownership of over 90% of Struthers and subject us to considerable dilution. If this issuance were not to take place then we could do rather well.

To: gpphantom who wrote (666)	1/12/1998 12:12:00 PM
From: gpphantom	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 709

Dissapointedly I have to say I was wrong. It doesn't bother me to admit I was wrong but I really did think Raoul was going to come through for us as I had outlined, I just gave Raoul too much credit. Raoul, you've used my conjecture and other rumors about as reason for instability in the stock and have implied that negotiations have been negatively impacted as a result in your reply. Let me point out that my post was written after trading had been halted and that I did not name the funding partner. You have no one to blame but yourself for the rumors that persist. Accept that, take responsibility for the lack of available factual information. Even today we were looking for content in your news release and you've given us nothing, and have even backhandidly managed to hold us at fault. Today's response was a dissapointment to me and I'm sure to the rest of the shareholders who were hoping for some factual information about their investment. Having never met or spoken with you since you haven't returned my calls, I don't know what to make of you, but I wish you luck over the next two weeks. As for the rumors, this is the last time I will be posting SIIS/Wincom subject material on SI. Good-bye