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 : BAAT - world records for electric vehicles with zinc-air -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gutterball who wrote (1753)	2/15/1998 1:03:00 PM
From: don roberson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6464

Thanks Dan, for bringing this again to our attention, but where does that leave us? You brought more "questions" that can't be answered at this time, and only when the SEC looks at the situation. So its not like you put any more light on the subject. You can find what "penalties" "may" be, but again, its still leaves us at the same position. So I can't reallly see what you can offer, that won't be obvious in the next few days. Its not that we aren't answering you. There are just no answers yet for what you keep posting. Dont you see?????

To: Gutterball who wrote (1753)	2/15/1998 1:08:00 PM
From: Richard L. Williams	Respond to of 6464

You would think that if someone raises allegations, you would want to look into them. One fact known, is that BAT is out of compliance with the SEC by not filing. Yes, Dan, I would think so...what about you, though? Even USA Today has stated that BAATwas not required to file a 10Q because it had fewer than 500 stockholders and less than $10mm (I believe) in assets. And everybody tries to blow this up to mean that ole Joe is up to something sneaky. What I see is that, not being required to file, he spent his time more profitably working on the car and getting the word about it out. Likely he wishes he had spent the time now, though. Rick

To: Gutterball who wrote (1753)	2/15/1998 1:32:00 PM
From: shashyazhi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6464

To all : Assuming that some unregistered shares had been sold, those numbers imply to me that there could be approximately a 9% dilution in the value of the shares. I am discounting the psychological effects on the market which would be caused by such a charge being proven. But who would take the loss, when you consider that the vast majority of stockholders do not demand the actual shares be mailed to them? Wouldn't the 9% dilution of stock price be passed on to all of the shareholders? I can absorb 9% loss if that allegation is proven. Suppose the shares that I bought are determined to be unregistered? How could the evidence trail lead to the specific transaction I made? I would assume that certificates printed on paper are serialized. How do the serial numbers link with the electronic transaction? Or, do I find protection in the anonymity of the bytes and megabytes? Socratic irony inevitably leads to both resentment and suspicion, as both Mr. Meckenstock and Mr. LaStella have learned. So, enlighten me with as little rhetoric as possible, please.

To: Gutterball who wrote (1753)	2/15/1998 2:20:00 PM
From: Fangorn	Respond to of 6464

Dan, You state "One fact known, is that BAT is out of compliance with the SEC by not filing." This is NOT a fact. BAT is NOT required to file with the SEC. BAT is required to respond to the subpoena which was only issued a few days ago. They can and probably will dispute what the subpoena asks for if it indeed does ask for proprietary info. The only thing they have to do by Wednesday is come up with a good argument why the subpoena should be ignored or delayed or changed. Your negative arguments are logical, this factual lapse notwithstanding. Your apparent assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid is (to say the least) a tad offputting. Namecalling may feel good but it is no substitute for intelligent discussion.