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 : Green Oasis Environmental, Inc. (GRNO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Marlin C. Harmon who wrote (8571)	1/21/1998 5:52:00 PM
From: Charles A. King	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13091

Marlin, Back when I was preparing (fixin') to do the numbers, I checked the GRNO website to get the latest. I saw a certain statement there that looked useful about a test that had been done, but later I went back to the page and it was gone. I searched high and low through all the GRNO website pages but couldn't find the statement. I called and talked to Bill. I said I swear I saw that statement there, it had been there all this time and suddenly it disappeared. He said the lawyers were working on the web site to get all spiffy for the SEC. Well, I said what about the statement that says, The Company has developed the system for commercial sale. Sales prices range from $1,600,000 to $2,750,000, depending upon capacity, location of the installation and shipping cost. He said that statement was wrong. Much later I called him again and asked him why that wrong statement was still on the page. He answered that it was hard to get the web site changed. That would beg the question, if a factual statement can be removed from a web site, why is it so difficult to get a wrong statement removed? I also discussed with him getting a news release with some sort of numerical information about product from the LP unit. That is absolutely crucial, material information pertaining not only to the LP but much more importantly, to the stock. He said he would like to, but he wasn't able to make the lawyers understand that. My point is this. The money that is going to pay the lawyers is our money, the company's money, the stockholders' money. What I don't understand is, why do these lawyers, who supposedly work for us, seem to be deliberately going out of their way to SCREW us? Charles