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 : Corporate Vision (CVIA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paulbk who wrote (1991)	3/1/1998 7:54:00 PM
From: J.R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6654

Paul: I agree with just about everything you previously posted. I do believe Jack Arnold used the word "extensive" when referring to Reg. S financing. So, I would expect CVIA to not rely on this type of financing. This time, it was used as a last result. However, I believe management does not want to keep using this form of raising capital again. I hope Jack Arnold read your post, as your opinion must be shared by a large number of shareholders--myself included.

To: paulbk who wrote (1991)	3/2/1998 1:26:00 AM
From: Milk	Respond to of 6654

P.B.: Thanks for the excellent post, you made some very good points there. I have to admit I am not satisfied with the way the Reg. S issue is being handled. If I remember correctly, a company has 15 days after the Reg. S placement to submit a filing. As for the following: "A Reg. S stock issue is a possibility, but only as a last resort. Real growth, in my opinion, cannot be achieved by extensive use of this type of program." - Jack Arnold, 1/5/98 (P.B. wrote:) So Arnold says that here on the 5th of January, and then on the 13th announces that they have completed an offering for 500,000 dollars. Does it take less than eight days to get a reg -s offering in motion? The Reg. S placement was obviously being prepared when Jack Arnold indicated it was "a possibility". It would be illegal for him to be more specific about the filing before the info became public (hit the wires). IMO, his comments were perfectly appropriate. I will be calling Jack Arnold again this week. He was, and remains, the main reason I invested in this company, and I hope he will justify the support we've been giving him as shareholders. Best regards, Milk

To: paulbk who wrote (1991)	3/2/1998 2:02:00 AM
From: D LEE	Respond to of 6654

Paul: -In the business world there are those who say rules are made to be broken. I am not saying this of CVIA/WOTD, only suggesting that they may be enjoying an advantage on behalf of the process they are going through, the long term success of which will benefit the shareholder. Statements in your first two paragraphs further confirm to me the fact it may be desirable for the company to take extra time submitting. I will continue to think this lag is in the better interest of company and shareholder alike. And I say to myself "Yes, go for it guys". -Because you are the only few people turning this into reality. (But I appreciate that they are wise enough to hear the less spoken votes of approval.) from Milk's web page" "A Reg. S stock issue is a possibility, but only as a last resort. Real growth, in my opinion, cannot be achieved by extensive use of this type of program." - Jack Arnold, 1/5/98 -And what percentage of the shell belongs to Mr. Arnold? The decision to go reg s was acceptable to WOTD "ownership"; a single man? I suppose, while chatting with Jack during a coffee brake? saying "Make it so"! (I see reason to imagine the people as opposed to the companies and apologize for this.) But Jack has practically completed his mission. He could have made 1000 better choices than oil & tire; or 1,000,000 worse ones. I think "a choice in this stable sector" was a very good idea on his part. The man behind WOTD is the man of question now, but we can at least be confident reg s is quite acceptable to him. (Paul, The second I saw any mention of reg s, I knew. But that is only a difference in personalities making me lucky.) About what I've just written above, I see only a different way of looking -as this stuff unwinds- than you or others may be employing, which seems to fit me as a person. They are simply ideas that allow me to relax until other information confirms or denies that I'm on the right track. So far I've had no reason to re-adjust. (Also, I don't think I place as much importance on news as I do on the emotions of today's buyers and sellers when it comes to the price behavior of any given stock.) But will there be no head faking here? WOTD is going to "walk their walk" Reg s is going to "walk their walk" and Shareholders must search the ways to keep their powder above water. (As things go forward the "stretch" may not be "polite") Actually, we're thinking alike. I'm just concerned the shareholder doesn't get hurt chasing the stock up, or overly involved averaging down, and by chatting a little that they may find ways of coming out ahead regardless of what happens. Time and emotions should be figured into the "cost", making it harder to brake even for both the shareholder AND the company people. Whether patience or impatience has an effect on ones loss or gain as they continue, being familiar and using ideas seems valuable to me and is something you can walk away with. And though the best lessons learned are learned during loss, if only temporary, look what you gain. It all depends on how you look at it. Yet I certainly don't blame you or anybody else who feels they should make their complaints known for they are every bit as genuine as mine would be. I just don't think mine would help because they know the rule and consequence better than I do. Though, I'll be the first to respect your complaint as justified. ********(and especially here!) And what did you mean by this? -#s 1986,1987,1988...* Please forgive me, Paul! I'm on my knees! It took me 5 or 6 reads and I'm feeling like a "Dummy" now, which is not unusual. Those words had "one meaning". I was responding to the 3 posts, and should have written: My conscience will not allow me to take "CVIA/WOTD" to task on such issues". cryptic indeed! Made me think of president Clinton "under oath". After his sex scandal inquiry, a reporter asked what he said. His reply was -"I told the people what they wanted to hear." I thought his was hilarious, But assure you, I have no desire to think the way he does! Besides, that was no fair, he had a coach. (and I hope for my sake nobody understands this. <g>) Sorry so long here as well, Paul. I overdone it, but enjoyed the chat. My very best wishes that all can come out smiling, and well rewarded! Dave