To: Zeus549 who wrote (1563 ) 5/18/1998 1:18:00 AM From: flightlessbird Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 4230
Lee: Again, I simply do not understand your desire to publicly express your skepticism before PERSONALLY talking to Scott Sitra or Colin Smith. There's a fine line between probing for information and excessive hole poking. C'mon man. No company is perfect, perfect, perfect. To address your specific concerns: 1. Re-check your Linzy numbers and re-read the Linzy release if you can find it or have Scott fax you a copy. You will see that, much like the Bristol deal, that money was available WHEN TIGERSHARK NEEDED IT BUT THE PRESS RELEASE DID NOT INDICATE AN ACTUAL PASSING OF FUNDS FROM LINZY TO TGSK. Until TGSK takes a dollar from Bristol, the deal is simply "available" for them. The fact that TGSK put 150,000 shares into escrow was a GOOD FAITH ACT in compliance with the reached agreement to show Linzy that they still viewed their relationship with Linzy as positive. There was no requirement by that escrow placement that TGSK take any financing from Linzy as I understand it. I believe the credit line was UP TO 2 million (as per the Feb 23 message to shareholders) and your overreliance on this 150k share figure means you have missed the point of the Linzy deal. At the time of the deal, TGSK had just gone public. Linzy came forward with a financing opportunity. Our CEO looked at that deal at that time and said "Let's keep our options open." As more lenders took an interest in TGSK, better deals opened up that did not have equity contingencies as the Linzy deal did. TGSK was smart both in keeping its options open and in waiting for better financing to become available. Lee, don't disparage or impugn TGSK until you get the full details on the Linzy deal, what financing options have superseded it and how TGSK is now proceeding. You say "was given". "Was given" = escrow. Please consider the meaning of escrow - escrow involves the placement of funds/equity into the hands of a third party to be held until A CONTINGENCY OR PERFORMANCE OF A CONDITION. Do you see why it is important to get facts straight before implicating TGSK? Please check this through more carefully before firing such unfair shots. 2. GEM may have offices in every country in the world but they operate out of the U.S. And are you aware of the 2 most popular states to incorporate? Delaware and Nevada. They do this because these states have the most lenient officer/director liability laws and because these states have the most consistent application of corporate laws on corporate issues. It is no surprise to me that both list an entity incorporated in the state of Nevada. God knows what wild goose chase we would be on if you had seen "delaware" in any reference. Check that out with any corporate securities attorney since you like to perform such DD. Or better yet, ask Colin. Just seems awfully odd don't you think that the filing for $5 million on March 30 preceded the March 31 press release annoncing a commitment of $5-10 million from GEM. Again, pull up most every company's SEC filings. YOU WILL NOT FIND A PRESS RELEASE ON EVERY SEC FILING. You just won't. Because TGSK didn't submit a press release that says "TGSK FILES FORM FOR $5 MILLION FINANCING" does not make them guilty as you charge. I cannot understand your witch hunt. It is so obvious based on your posting history that you just don't like this stock. DON'T INVEST IN IT LEE. DON'T INVEST IN IT. If TGSK hasn't shown you enough yet, DON'T INVEST IN IT!!!!!!! Wait. Wait until more earnings come out. Wait until it gets its NASDAQ small cap listing. Wait until it inks more deals like Polaris. Wait, wait, wait until you are satisfied that there can be nothing wrong with the company whatsoever. Now by then, you could be paying $5-8 per share, but by then you'll have your "security" that you seek. Particularly after my advice to be civil to the naysayers, I seem to go back on my own advice here. But I am not. I am civil. If you continue to air your concerns without more thoughtful and researched fact checking, then I will continue to question your right to do so. At the very least, you owe it to yourself, to TGSK and to us to contact the company to get the facts before throwing out a wild supposition. I have taken great pains in the past to try to track down as much information as I can before posting it. Take care Lee. I am sorry to steal away your "smoking gun". It is exhausting to me and to others to have to address your concerns this way when you can so easily direct your inquiries to either Sitra or Colin who have the exact answers. Is there anybody else that finds this pattern of Lee's research disturbing?