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: Jon Tara who wrote (4740)	3/25/1998 11:26:00 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

Jon, do us all a favor. Go back a few weeks before the release of the Wired article, and read what everybody on this thread had to say. You'll do better, if you do. Alternatively, you may want to spend your time on the NETZ board as a lurker. Because your posts have been all wrong.

To: Jon Tara who wrote (4740)	3/25/1998 11:36:00 AM
From: Robert J. DeLambo	Respond to of 18444

Jon, Certainly, your point is well taken in the sense that conventional wisdom tends to place more credibility on a "big six" audit, at least wall st. does. However, I have done securities litigation in my time, including cases where accounting firms of the big six variety were defendants, and you would be surprised what some of them were caught doing. Believe me, "joe" isn't all that bad. If the firm is a licensed CPA firm experienced in securities work and regulation sx (I think that is the right one), then the audit will be fine.

To: Jon Tara who wrote (4740)	3/25/1998 12:22:00 PM
From: BlackStar	Respond to of 18444

1. Burgess allegedly said (geez, Party, now fair is fair, how about YOU start saying "allegedly", too?) in an e-mail to one of the thread participants, that they WOULD be audited by a Big-6 firm. The statement in question from the first revision of the 'alleged' letter [The letter is for all intents and purposes real, btw]: 14A. A Big Six firm is doing the audit. IMO, it is pointless to crucify Burgess if the books don't show up by March 31st. That would just be due to things taking longer than expected. But should the audit appear to be made by some 'lesser' firm I would loose a good deal of faith in Burgess ability to even get accurate info from within the company. In that case I would assume that Burgess is just fed info to 'leak' to us to keep the level of interest up. Let's hope it isn't so. Also, let's not bicker about this point as time will reveal facts with any desired level of clarity.