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 : CSHK CASHCO MANAGEMENT Y2K -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Chapman who wrote (1759)	5/5/1998 10:38:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 7491

We're equal opportunity spoofers. You still don't get it, do you? Here's a hint: TokyoMex posted a joke to TED. TED then posted a joke to Tokyo Mex. Understand? Feeling peckish? soar.berkeley.edu

To: John Chapman who wrote (1759)	5/5/1998 11:00:00 AM
From: Josef Svejk	Respond to of 7491

Humbly report, John, TokyoMex has been in on FBN since: Message 2670941 Svejk (GL-15 applies: digiserve.com ;-)

To: John Chapman who wrote (1759)	5/5/1998 11:15:00 AM
From: TEDennis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7491

John: Re: TokyoMex ... Yet another occurrence of an SI poster having a little fun with the spoof. If you read back through the Double Zero thread and the FBNA thread, you'll see names of lots of folks from other threads playing along with the gag. It's a comedic relief to the stresses of investing. You'll find spoofy FBN references scattered throughout other threads, too. We're quite big in the Y2K industry, you know. I really thought that the name "FBN" (Fly By Night) would tip off the majority of thread lurkers. Obviously, we did too good a job with the spoof. I'm seriously considering renaming the company to "TIC" (Tongue In Cheek). Perhaps that will make it more obvious ... although anybody who really reads it and still thinks it's real wouldn't be convinced that it's not. Maybe "SCAM" would be even more indicative, but it has a negative connotation. The problem with renaming the company is that we'd have to reissue the 25 million shares of non-existing stock we have outstanding. Relax .... with FBNA, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Regards,

To: John Chapman who wrote (1759)	5/5/1998 12:59:00 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7491

Mr. Chapman, please help me understand. Am I correct in assuming you are leery of a free independent professional evaluation of a product that I cannot see and that was tested by a company that I cannot find, and that although you may obtain access to that original testing company, you refuse to corroborate the rumored testing company's existence with even a phone number? The only evaluation of the alleged product is a third party report by someone who was paid to write it. A non-biased independent evaluation would silence the "bashers" as you call them, but you refuse to allow that the person that has offered to do the evaluation has a sense of humor, and covertly imply that this person may have a hidden and complex motive for testing this alleged product for free, and further, that this professional would make a false and biased report of the findings of his test. At the same time, you have no problem with fully believing the information already disseminated on the alleged product from the company that says they own it, information from the parent company that comes via a paid conduit onto the Internet, with other rumors and data via third parties via the Internet, and choose to accept this data as factual in lieu of independent data. Is this in fact your position?