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: FlatTaxMan who wrote (6543)	5/5/1998 12:38:00 PM
From: Fredman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

Hayton's record speaks for itself (business record, SEC investigation record.....), massive exits by almost ALL 'top' management. I have yet to find anybody to jump off a GREAT ship at sea for no reason.

To: FlatTaxMan who wrote (6543)	5/5/1998 10:32:00 PM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

No, Steven, I don't own any NETZ. Why is that even a question? I would be quite the hypocrite if I did own NETZ stock, now wouldn't I? I didn't say that you threatened anyone. I thought my sarcasm of your post was quite clear. I'm sorry that you didn't "get it". My suggestion that you paid somebody to threaten me is just as rediculous as yours that I am being paid to make these posts. It has no basis in fact, and I have no way to prove it - in fact, I just plain made it up (as SARCASM). Neither does your suggestion that I am being paid to make negative posts about NETZ have any basis in fact, and you have no way to prove it. So, why bring it up? You just made it up. For the n'th time, I didn't plant any seeds about an SEC investigation. I made it clear (again and again) that I know of no such investigation. Still, I stick by my observation that the probability of an investigation at some point in the future is higher than for most stocks, because of Hayton's involvement. My only purpose was to warn people that this stock is more likely than most to receive close regulatory scrtiny at some point, and they should govern their posts accordingly, since they become a permanent record that can be reviewed at will. If you don't do anything improper, you have NOTHING to worry about. If this doesn't apply to you, simply ignore it, and move on. As far as the thread focus, I try to talk about the stock, but others here (including you) seem to want to continually drag it toward personal attacks. It is NOT me who is defocusing the conversation. I occasionally short stocks, but I am not, as you put it, "a shorter". Another just plain wrong assertion that you are just making up. On the occasions when I have shorted a stock, it's been for a very short period, as I don't have the deep pockets to hold shorts for a long time. And more often than not, I short a stock that I have held, when it "goes bad". (If you are right about getting out, you would usually be right to go ahead and short it as well...) No, my discussion of this stock is not balanced, nor need it be, nor, in my opinion, should it be. Neither is yours, or anybody elses. Balance in looking at a stock can only be achieved by viewing a variety of opinions. You, and some others here, would rather drown out that divergent opinion and not permit balance in the discussion.