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 : Airstar Technologies, Inc. (ASTG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wes who wrote (1775)	4/10/1998 1:14:00 PM
From: Thomas Jon Swift	Respond to of 3967

Wes, It is true that the SEC would be interested in a person who is misrepresenting himself/herself as a company director or company insider,as the XECOM hater Suckerfinder does. But I suspect anyone at the SEC (and any reasonable person) would infer so much obvious satire in what SF writes that nothing against him/her could in anyway be deemed legally actionable. He/she is saying exactly what he/she means to say, precisely, anyone investing in XECOM is a meatheaded, gullible, suckerish Jethro Clampitt. That's SF's message, and he/she has a right to have it and express it. As far as SF's damage to XECOM being "irreparable," two points: 1)How many people log on to this thread?, and 2) If the 1998 numbers come in to equal $15 to $18 million (gross revenues), as XECOM's director Dal has projected, SF will become nothing other than two glassy eyes peering out from under a rock. TJS

To: Wes who wrote (1775)	4/10/1998 1:45:00 PM
From: uu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3967

** Response from The NetWork * The notion of people actually believing in the ridicilous claims of posters on SI threads especially those of a person who calls himself the SuckerFinder is really interesting (to say the least)!! I could not help it but laugh to just think that anyone who pays attention to Suckerfinder and takes him/her serious is nothing but ... well you know what I mean! Despite the fact that I believe SuckerFinder is a mean spirited individual I do not really see any difference between him and anyone else who comes along and hypes the company in ridiculous manners (remember Evangelist Joseph Lanza, his wife Ms. Profit, and all others from FIG?!). Surely you can go to any SI thread and find bozos hyping the company, however I think most (if not all) readers have the intelligence to see the truth. As for Mr. Vigliar issuing a statement that Suckerfinder has no relationship with the company, now that would be something really funny! Imagine the CEO of the company issuing an official company release statement that "attention everyone, a person who calls himself SuckerFinder* has absolutely no relationship with the company!!"* I can imagine Reuters picking up this news and sending it across wires all over the world!! I am writing this and I am laughing my head off! This is some heavy duty funny stuff we are talking about here. As for SEC dealing with these issues, this would be as comical as having Suckerfinder as the CEO of Xecom!! And who knows meybe he is the CEO, after all you have Financial Internet Group as promoters of Xecom anyway!! What you are suggesting is for SEC to go after anyone who posts ridicilous claims on sites such as SI!! We may as well ask them to also go after anyone who claims he/she knows god in person and/or is send from the mighty god himself to guide us! As for this thread, and with all due respect to all the participants, I continue to think this is perhaps the best place in cyber space to get great laughs after a very busy and hard day at work. Long Live XECM (the popular SEE-BS sit-com!) techstocks.com

To: Wes who wrote (1775)	4/13/1998 1:16:00 PM
From: Financial Internet Group	Respond to of 3967

Wes, The Company and Joe Lanza both feel that there is little to post to Suckerfinder except what I have just posted. Joe feels Suckerfinder could be Mr. Giant or Mr. H. He also feels posting number 1784 could be a slip. (When has old management been discussed in the last 200 postings? he asks.) It seems to me that both SF and TJS are implying that Joe Lanza is a director or a member of management. As you know, Joe Lanza is consultant to the Company. Period. Current management replaced former management because former management was doing a bad job. We felt that Xecom would die under their leadership. To say that we (current management) are the best is obviously not the truth, but we are doing everything we can to see this company thrive. Dennis Casey has been running the Sprint/AAFES contract and we feel he has done a very good job so far. The Board is constantly looking for ways to improve management and augment the Company's revenue stream. Dal Grauer