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 : NAMX -- North American Expl.-- Que Sera Sera! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (3274)	4/2/1998 6:41:00 PM
From: M. M. Jones	Respond to of 4736

From what I know of the company, which is nothing at all except the few press releases it has put out, and its history, which does not include statements by Stamm or Peppers (except a recent phrase by Peppers), it is no stretch of the imagination. I'm not suggesting it is true. I'm saying let's consider this as a possibility, because for all we know it COULD be true. But in my post, what I was really doing was urging Stamm and Peppers to fight for their company and make the record a lot clearer than it is right now. exchange2000.com Their firing Paul does not prove the effectiveness of the emsounder. Because there could have been all kinds of secret agreements to line the pockets of everyone involved. On the other hand, if the effectiveness of the emsounder is proved objectively, then that would lend a lot of creditiliby to their assertion that Paul did not leave voluntarily. Or, proof that Paul defrauded them would support their statement that Paul did not leave them voluntarily. But Paul's malfeasance and subsequent leaving would not prove the effectiveness of the emsounder or their statement that Paul was fired. So saying the board said this or that is irrelevant at this point, IMO, considering the lack of other information. We need more solid information about the company, its product, and its operations. M.M.