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: JOE TURMAINE who wrote (2311)	5/15/1998 6:36:00 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 7491

"My personal opinion is that the continual questioning in regard to Tony's personal background is "invasive of another's privacy"." Joe, I would normally agree, but in this case an attempt has been made to physically locate Janice, and perhaps others I don't know about, so that fact combined with the nature of the offense of which he was convicted does imho make the question relevant, especially since this SJB keeps bringing up the 'Tony' subject. A clear picture of the facts could perhaps clear the thing up.

To: JOE TURMAINE who wrote (2311)	5/15/1998 6:45:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7491

My personal opinion is that the continual questioning in regard to Tony's personal background is "invasive of another's privacy". If disclosure was an SEC requirement it would be reported. If it's not required to be reported then it is none of your business unless Tony wishes to share it with you. But they're not a reporting company, are they? And so they have no filing obligations to the SEC. Note, please, that I'm not the one who's been asking the most questions about Tony. Still, I'm interested. Rebecca said: 1) he isn't an officer; 2) he isn't a 5% shareholder; 3) he has received no compensation from CSHK. Uh-huh. So why's he working for 'em? Note what Rebecca did NOT say: 1) that Tony has no connection to CSHK; 2) that Tony is not a convicted felon. Okay, if you're comfortable with a possibly formerly felonious IR guy, fine. For me, it waves a red flag, as TED would say. Reg S? Well, I'm not sure whether they can take advantage of that till they're a reporting company. Must ask our Legal Chicken. But How, exactly, do you think they plan to finance future acquisitions? Or, for that matter, present acquisitions? A Reg S deal is a convenient way to do it. Hard on the stockholders, yes, but money in the bank. And there was also that post from February? Remember? About how the company had cut a deal with "the shorts" to make 'em stop? Normally (well, okay, it isn't really "normal" but it does occur) this happens in the aftermath of a Reg S deal. The Reg S guys who did the deal short against their convertibles, and..... Things get nasty, the company finally pays 'em off. And a final quote from you: How the company is structured so long as everything is legal and does not adversely affect common shareholder value is not a major concern of mine. No comment from me. Anyone else?

To: JOE TURMAINE who wrote (2311)	5/15/1998 7:37:00 PM
From: CatLady	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7491

" How the company is structured so long as everything is legal and does not adversely affect common shareholder value* is not a major concern of mine."* Joe, remember those FL incorporation documents that someone posted links to? Perhaps you may want to read them and then see if you are still so comfortable.

To: JOE TURMAINE who wrote (2311)	5/16/1998 12:08:00 AM
From: jhild	Respond to of 7491

Joe, I do see that you haven't forgotten me entirely, and for that I thank you. I think that you and I can be friends. I do see though that you slipped in a taunt about being a member of a group that is being devious & deceitful. You are to be commended at least for not slipping into the viler forms of rhetoric employed by your Yahoolie cohorts. (Ironic isn't it Joe, that perfect examples of what violates the Terms of Use and would get you kicked off SI, are being copiously employed by your fellow investors over on Yahoo. Now there is some stuff there that is tortious.)