To: Pugs who wrote (36523 ) 1/14/1998 9:38:00 AM From: (Bob) Zumbrunnen Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 55532
My favorite post of yours to date, Pugs. A few points, though.....I wanted to take the time and apologize And, more importantly:I'll do my best to not let it happen again. I feel much better about you for having seen you say those words. Will feel better, still, if I see follow-through. I am, after all, a Missourian.Out of the 40,000 posts Kugler is only responsible for approx. 5500 I hope you read this before your next fax to Principal, etc. Kugler is responsible for about 5500 messages in ALL of SI; not the RMIL thread. His posts here are likely in the 1000 range.this gives them some credibilty now, people ASSOCIATE them with finding 'scams'. s martin & Kugler have "worked"together, Tonto & Kugler have "worked" together....NOW!!! s martin & Tonto & Kugler are 'working' together. I HAVE NO IDEA IF THIS IS TRUE but it WARRANTS CLOSER INSPECTION Personally, I don't see that they're "working together", but I also wouldn't have a problem if they were. I don't know why there would be a problem with people working together to accomplish a task, whether it be to warn people away from what is seen as a bad situation, or to alert people to a money-making opportunity, as you, Riley, Ellen, and others seem to be "working together" to do. Indulge me and follow through on your reasoning regarding Tonto, Kugler, and Martin "working together". What is the hypothesis you're testing? Why the almost 'pathological' concern over RMIL? And remember not to discount the most plausible answers simply because you don't like those answers. Truth doesn't care who likes it.Does RMIL warrant this scrutiny? That is the most important question. It's the question I always ask myself when I see negative posts on any stock. Personally, I think RMIL should be the poster-child for "Closer Scrutiny". Others should definitely ask themselves whether the scrutiny is warranted (and whether the hype is warranted) and investigate accordingly. If there is no huge short position, why are they here? Whether or not the short position exists does not seem to be the sole basis of their posts. It's been an important part of their participation, but by no means the main focus. As I see it, none of us really knows for sure whether that short position exists. The evidence on both sides of the issue is largely circumstantial and drawing a conclusion one way or the other would require reliance on assumptions that may or may not prove to be true. Riley has done a good job and the correct job in trying to determine how many shares are owned by shareholders. If solid evidence confirming the number of outstanding shares appears (an audited Q or K), his efforts will be what busts the chops of the guilty parties. I do commend his efforts in that regard, my thoughts regarding his other activities aside.Why NO NEGATIVITY over Morks' fradulent press releases? Incorporating a phony buisness under the same name? Good question. Could it be, though, because it is, at best, a side issue? It's RMIL that's the publicly held company in question. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that Mork is as he presents himself, but I'm also not convinced he's not. Regardless, I see it as being far less important than other issues regarding RMIL.Why is the squeeze always buried by mountains of fundamental propoganda without mention of the $5MM, new bottling facilities, backorders for RMIL Because an important part of their posts has been to not implicitly trust something to be true simply because the company says it's true.I just can't comprehend the pathological concern over RMIL by folks w/o 1 cent invested Just because one can't comprehend the reasons for certain activities by others doesn't make those activities dubious. I can't comprehend eating seafood, but I don't suspect that people are evil who happen to love it.Is he/Tonto/Doug54 ..out to PROVE this another GIFS and shake shares in the process? A valid question. IMO, one should view everything here with some level of skepticism, but must also be willing to accept answers that may not be the desired ones. Is it possible they want to "shake shares", as you say? By all means, it is. I don't see it as being the likely correct answer, though, but it bears checking into. My own reason for believing this is not the case is that their activities seem to be more focused on discouraging people from buying; not on getting people to sell.I know credibility is a big issue, and hope I haven't diminished it in any way... In my eyes, you did, but you've already gone a long way toward regaining it. Best of luck to you, Pugs, and I do hope you are eventually proven to be right about the things you've said about the company.