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.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JakeSki who wrote (6691)	1/23/1998 3:20:00 PM
From: SE	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10368

My interpretation of his impression of the SI thread is that it is driven be fear, greed, ranting and raving. I am not sure how much clout the SI thread has since the talk has degenerated somewhat from constructive analysis to a witch hunt. I guess if the shoe fits.... The problem he doesn't seem to realize is that many of us on this board have lots of hard earned dollars invested in this company. Some of us on margin. Some more than they should. Etc..etc... He doesn't make the investing decisions for us, however, the warrant call placed many of us in tenable situations and wiped out many others. I have emailed with some of these people. If he wants to throw us out and determine that we are witch hunting, so be it. I will be happy to get back to discussions of numbers etc, when management once again makes that the focus. Right now they are directionless and the focus is not on the numbers, it is on who is running the company and where are they going to take it. That is actually a very constructive focus. I am sorry that Mr. Fearnow disagrees. No I am not, actually I don't care that he doesn't view this thread as constructive, I know I do and I think many others do as well. This is a lot more constructive than it was during the warrant call, don't you think????? GO PACK GO! -Scott PS - Harold, welcome aboard. We are glad to have you. The good ship is about to leave the harbor. Let us hope the first letter on the side of the bow is not "T".

To: JakeSki who wrote (6691)	1/24/1998 8:49:00 AM
From: T.K. Allen	Respond to of 10368

George - I find the following comment very curious: "Mr. Fearnow was very sensitive about giving out information via non 'official' channels." So speaking directly with a single individual is "official" and OK but making the same statements on a discussion board in not OK? I don't understand. Maybe Fearnow's position on which channels are available for communication is based in SEC regulations but if he is going to hand out important information about the company without a formal press release, what difference does it make which "channel" gets used? I don't get it. Please don't take this as me picking on you, George, my intent is nothing of the sort. I truly appreciate you passing on what you have learned to the rest of us. Please continue to do so. However, this quote from your post "My interpretation of his impression..." illustrates exactly my point in wishing Fearnow would post directly. In absence of comments directly from Fearnow, we (meaning the SI thread) get his message filtered through the "interpretation" of whoever he chooses to talk to - in this case, you. Next time it could be me. I just think there is less chance of misunderstanding if the rest of us get his messages directly, instead of second-hand. TKA