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 : INFORMATION ANALYSIS (IAIC) - YEAR 2000 Date Remediation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1468)	4/19/1998 1:04:00 PM
From: Matthew F. Kern	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2011

Jeff: Hi. How have you been? In the past FAHN alone was insufficient to affect IAIC without DS and Key West and the other less visible and less scrupulous players. It especially took those trumped up negative articles full of half truths to get things moving for the shorts. Now things are a bit more out in the open. Most of those players should be afraid to act in the same ways they did before. Any lies in articles would be more transparent now with CR coverage etc. Let us hope this situation holds, and FAHN knows when to back off. The rate of revenue increase at IAI and the decreasing short interest paint a pretty good picture overall. viwes.com .......Matt

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1468)	4/19/1998 5:06:00 PM
From: cage	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2011

A question for those who are very familiar with regulations and rules with the SEC-would there possibly be some sort of illegal things going on with Fahn, given the record of those companies that have been mentioned as all going down in price-was Fahn ever a party/affiliated with IAIC or the other companies, so that they were held to certain regulations that would preclude certain acts by them to affect the price? Just a thought. Any educated answer would be appreciated.