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.

Technology Stocks : Osicom(FIBR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CH who wrote (5942)	3/15/1998 11:21:00 PM
From: Afaq Sarwar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10479

CH, You want people to take your posts seriously while you post things like: "I only said Mr. Witz's health might be OK right now, (I was informed by a previous employee of Osicom and I have not confirmed Mr Witz's health status by myself because I have no way to do it)." Why every one who has some thing "funny" to say about Osicom gets his information from "unnamed" "former employees"? And the information is always unconfirmed? "so we can have chance to know the "fact" or get closer to the fact, some members here seem to have close contact with Par, why don't they ask him the fact and tell us here, if Mr Witz is recovered from his health" If the status of BW's health is so crucial to your health, instead of spreading unsupported and unsubstantiated impressions about the company, why don't you simply pickup the phone call the company and ask the questions yourself. "It looks suspicious to me that a major shareholder with 20% does not on the board, especially with a history of Barron's article." Are you sure he owns 20% of Osicom shares. May be you should check this out. Off course unless spreading misinformation and negative impressions is your objective. "do I have right to provide some of my findings to the new comers so that they will not copy my mistake?" And you call this stuff "findings". This should tell you why it is so hard to take some one like you seriously. But this should not stop you, keep it up. Also, I am not going to ask you as to who is paying you for your "services". Afaq Sarwar

To: CH who wrote (5942)	3/15/1998 11:29:00 PM
From: CMS27	Respond to of 10479

CH, Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I guess I'm not sure what your question asks or suggests. You say he is apparently healthy, well maybe, maybe not. I still don't see how that substantiates Barrons, which was the point of our discussion. Substaniation would be a quote from an SEC or DOJ official, a legal court document, something... anything solid. I have seen nothing of that sort to support the articles claims. In one of the articles they quote someone they describe as less than scrupulous, can't remember if the person was convicted of securities fraud or not, but the article went in depth on what a snake this guy was and then they quote him? In my mind he hardly qualifies as a reliable source. I'm long and yes I am somewhat defensive. Because the only negatives I hear are total crap, or just sensationalized ordinary trivails of any small cap tech stock. Share dilution was easily predictable if you read any of the SEC docs regarding the aquisitions. Big deal they bought companies with stock, they held the respective corporate officers and employess with stock, this is surprising to people? They wrapped up what 6 or more companies and only show 21 mil. outstanding? Pretty good business. A publication suggests that the mob may be influencing FIBR market makers but cannot provide details, then Congress launches an investigation and finds barely an instance of the "mob on wall street", one small case not involving FIBR or any of the other 20 or so companies BW listed. And I'm not supposed to get defensive over this crap? I'm all for sharing info. But I'm very impatient with negative inuendo, please forgive me, it's been along road. Scott