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 : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Riley G who wrote (44047)	3/16/1998 12:09:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

I speak what I believe to be the truth concerning YOU and other nays on this thread and will recant NOTHING that I wrote in that message. I never said that YOU were a paid shill, I said that you are aiding a certain broker in his and Morks actions against RMIL, and it's not my fault that you are misguided about RMIL. BTW, have you heard that MORK is an admitted short seller of 100,000 shares of RMIL? I thought you could not short OTC BB stocks? BTW, You and others have claimed that I am a hypster, pump & dumper, and even stock promoter, and that is slander and outright lies and you now it. I resent the fact that YOU and others have accused me of passing along inside information from RMIL. This is not the case at all, it called picking up the telephone and making telephone calls. I have been told the same thing that everyone else has been told. For the record, I took your comments as a threat, and that's all that matters. Even if you are getting private DMV information about me (NY. not CT. regulations). Riley, again I suggest that you quit practicing law without a license. Just because you believe something to be true does not make it so. You have to have strong circumstancial evidence to support your beliefs and I have provided you none of those. I have been quite open and vocal about my reasons for posting to this thread. You have chosen to ignore my public statements, which btw, would be admissiable in a civil court, and for which I would have to account should someone be able to present evidence to the contrary of my statements. Riley, you stated that you believe I am part of an anti-RMIL conspiracy working for the benefit of Dempsey Mork or other alleged RMIL manipulators. I am not. A counter argument would be that, "IF" RMIL management is engaged in a conspiracy to misrepresent their company status to its shareholders, that you are a willing abettor to this activity. Would you agree with this?? I think not. As for Mork being a admitted short-seller of RMIL stock, I have not heard that. What I HAVE read is that Mr. Mork claims that he was contracted by an OVIS/RMIL contractor to sell 100,000 shares at .05/share pending delivery of those shares to the broker. This is quite different than manipulative short-selling. This is a transaction that would be perfectly legal given that he had full expectation of receiving those shares from Mr. Zapara to meet the sale requirements. But I would not presume to vouch for Mr. Mork and the worthiness of his case. I have no information that would corroborate his claims other than his letter to the SEC and his publicly filed lawsuit. I also have not seen an official response from RMIL to his claims and any counter-claims they would be willing to present. Have you?? As for your passing along inside information, that can be confirmed by the many public posts yourself and Pugs have made related to the expected arrival of the promised financing. Of course, we know that none of these predictions have come to pass as of yet, but it stipulates one of two scenarios. 1. That by calling the company you are being told information not generally available to the investing commmunity at large through public filings. or 2. That you have been making up this information and posting it for whatever personal reasons and that the company will not stand by your comments. For the record, you private messaged me and asked me if those campaign contributions were mine. You then further implied that you possessed even more information and thus were making a concerted effort to research my private life. You ended this by adding the commment "No winks" which implied you were acting in a very serious manner. I responded by asking you PRIVATELY if certain information I had obtained was still correct or bore any significance. You then posted that private message to the public bulletin board and insinuated that I had threatened your life. I took your comments as threatening as well, Riley. I also suggested that you cease your activities as it would result in an escalation. I never posted anything about you to the public Bulletin Boards. You did. I merely copied those posts and provided a synopsis of the entire exchange, private and public, in order to present the proper context. And Riley, you are a hypster but you see that is not a crime. (unless you are employed by the company in some capacity as a representative.) I, and the general public, define a "hypster" as someone who knowingly submits information that presents a misrepresentative and fallacious picture of a situation. Since none of your predictions have come to pass, nor have the investigations of other individuals substantiated and confirmed your claims, I have no reason to recant that. But of course, the very moment that RMIL is able to provide public confirmation that the things you claim are true, I will publicly apologize and recant my statements as being obsolete and no longer pertinent. Riley, you can hate me, call me nasty names....etc. But do not attempt to incorporate me into your wild fantasies of a vast RMIL conspiracy. I post because I have taken a personal interest in seeing this company publicly disclose it current situation in order that its shareholders have a legally binding statement from the company as to its status. I also post in order to act as a foil to what I percieve as being misrepresentive claims by certain individuals that are not supported by the company's public filings. No more, no less. If you would spend more time pressing company management to support your claims with verified public information, you would spend less time hanging by the threads of your constantly inaccurate claims and representations. I suggest that you ponder that strategy for a while and reflect on the power of its inherent logic. Regards, Ron