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 : ProNetLink..(PNLK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ztect who wrote (4958)	5/18/1998 6:50:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 8242

COMMENT ABOUT DJ NEWS ARTICLE While one could make an argument that "any publicity is good publicity", I think it is fair to argue that "any bad publicity is bad publicity". With those most obvious things said, I think the damaging part of the piece is the credibility it gave to Chatworthless as serious analysts (what was that about DELL?Microsoft?). The item NEVER addressed by the naysayers (I'm trying to be objective, but this is difficult) and the DJ article is the fact that C&D told de facto lies by stating that there was no guarantee that the website was going to go up. Yes, a turtle or squirrel could have crawled into the PNLK ISP powerswitches and backups in three parts of the world simultaneously, and yes there may have been a stray nuclear explosion from eastern Asia that might have stopped the PNLK opening, but THE POINT IS the wording really intimated that PNLK was a scam. Period. Most legal things with which I have been acquainted require analysis based on the perspectives of a so-called "reasonable person" (correct me if I am wrong MR. LegalBeast, if you are out there). Wouldn't any objective, reasonable person wait the 24 hours for the website to go up rather than decry the possibility of it not? I guess timing is everything when you are [shorting a stock, oops, er, I mean] helping the public. I do not think that a reasonable person could come to any other conclusion based on the C&D recommendation than that PNLK might be a scam that might not come to fruition. Why didn't anyone ask C&D if they had EVER issued statements such as this before (2X in 2days)? Why didn't the DJ article mention to newbies the possibilty of shorts or, at least, specifically mention the word? I think the article was an attempt at objectivity, but unless one had followed this story as closely as we, enough questions remain in the minds of the average non-DD doing, non-shareowner (i.e., "prospective" shareowner) to come to a rather imbalanced conclusion. That, in my opinion, does not do this company a service. Since we are "long", it may not matter much, especially if this leads to real and reasoned longer pieces about PNLK. But, as a shareholder, I would rather see "honest hype" than dishonest, misleading statements that are not based in fact. Sorry for the length of this, but I had to slap the keyboard since I can't slap decency into C&D or detailed knowledge into the DJ author.