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 : Zulu-tek, Inc. (ZULU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: I Am John Galt who wrote (1030)	2/23/1998 10:46:00 PM
From: purecntry5	Respond to of 18444

When you talk to those guys at the Street.com tell them the other guy they quoted wasnt too happy either. I feel I was taken out of context and demand a dollar and formal apology for the pain and suffering caused, both actual as well as punitive. I doubt I will sleep a wink tonight. Thank you Mr. Gregg €á

To: I Am John Galt who wrote (1030)	2/23/1998 10:46:00 PM
From: DR. DODE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

Thanks Matty for your post. I have been considering making a point of your remarks but decided against it. I was happy to see you write what you did. Let's get on with it :) Doc

To: I Am John Galt who wrote (1030)	2/24/1998
From: Theo	Respond to of 18444

I agree with you that NETZ could stave off a lot of unnecessary flak by putting out some sort of news tomorrow on the company's state or condition. I find it curious that Mr. Wirtz chose IDID in his comparison/analogy. Why not highlight ACCY which turned its float over (not discounting MM double accounting) recently on a 200% runnup on NO news and which has fallen back to roughly 40-50% over its pre-runup price ? Or how about the BAAT situation? Even USA Today has followed that puppy on the front page!? Both of these companies have had huge runups on huge volume and continue to thrive (for now). No, he instead chose an obscure company that actually crashed and burned a couple of years ago. If you should be able to talk with him tomorrow, perhaps he might explain why he chose a company that failed spectacularly in '96 instead of a company that more closely resembles the type of activity he was trying to portray. I suspect sensationalism is the answer, but, I doubt that that will be what you are told.......................... Won't change anything, but, I feel better having vented. Theo

To: I Am John Galt who wrote (1030)	2/24/1998 10:40:00 AM
From: Rande Is	Respond to of 18444

Matty, your demand for news did not land on deaf ears. You are to be commended for your efforts in defending your principals. You have continually shown maturity well beyond your years. With your lead, we have successfully sifted through information and data on NETZ and determined above all doubt that ZULU-TEK has enormous potential. ZULU-Tek Announces Strong Continued Growth With $39 Million In Total 1997 Revenue, Exceeding Doubleclick By 22%ÿ At last the ZULU-TEK company has rewarded us all with confirmation that our conclusions were correct. Hats off to you, Matty and to the many others who shared long hours of DD on this board. Let the celebration begin...we have found a winner. Rande Is