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: out_of_the_loop who wrote (4962)	5/18/1998 6:58:00 PM
From: Planter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8242

As always Doc, you have made most of us think. What do you propose we do as a team, since we do have Glenn and Co. who may see things as you do? Would we be doing damage control, or, damage? P

To: out_of_the_loop who wrote (4962)	5/18/1998 7:01:00 PM
From: ztect	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 8242

M.D.- Do you suspect there is any lingering animosity from DJ towards PNLK regarding the previous weeks legal problems regarding their reported and rescinded association ? Don't you think also that when the more sophisticated investors review C & D's analysis that they, like many on this thread, will immediately see through the lacking level of analytical ability demonstrated by this outfit which already has a dubious rep? Remember all it takes is "one respected person" to make a recommendation regarding PNLK that will counteract most of the nonsense that has been bantering about. So the greater the visibility and the higher the base, the greater the likely hood that such a recommendation will be made by such a person. ztect

To: out_of_the_loop who wrote (4962)	5/18/1998 8:16:00 PM
From: jwk	Respond to of 8242

Doc - Can't argue with your points, but as I tried to say a bit earlier --- because of the near term time frame in which we will get actual factual data from actual realworld performance, or non-performance, the task of separating the bullshit from the FACTS will be relativley easy. Any Journalists watching and researching for a possible follow-up story will have no problem seeing CD's true colors.

To: out_of_the_loop who wrote (4962)	5/18/1998 11:26:00 PM
From: LegalBeast	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8242

Dr, you know I cannot let a challenge like that go unanswered. You pushed the right button and away we go. (You just have to hate it when that series of neurons fires) Anyway, if we were analyzing the wrongdoing that flows from their actions, the test of whether or not they acted would be measured by the test of the "reasonable person". In other words, what actions would the reasonable person have taken under similar circumstances. They don't even come close to passing the smell test. Now then, lets examine for a moment, their strategy. Here we have a company that knows, indeed has been sanctioned before by the SEC for causing the same effect, the effects of their actions. They don't want the price at 8 for whatever reason. If they wait till the site opens and it does then they have no story. However, if they cast enough doubt on the folks who have no idea other than "Volume is up, price is increasing" (and yes, there are a bunch of investors that play only those statistics) then their goal is met. The price drops, they cover their shorts, and then go long as the site opens and effectively, the heat that they take is minimal compared to the profit they claim. I put it to you, if you were our metaphorical "reasonable person" and a mere slip of your lip could result in an immediate profit within a couple of days, would you do it? I submit it would be like having tomorrow's stock report today. The reasonable person WOULD do it. That is why we have laws to prevent the abuse of such power and it is exactly why everyone of us should write the SEC and voice a complaint against them. Remember that the only reason that we pass laws in the first place is to cure some problem that exists. In this case the law was passed to prevent these abuses of power. Disclaimer: IMHO

To: out_of_the_loop who wrote (4962)	5/19/1998 12:16:00 AM
From: Gordon W. Campbell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 8242

MORE COMMENT ON DJ RELEASE While I have been a regular reader of this thread I finally decided to sign up. Why did I sign up? Because the DJ release got me so ticked off that I had to say something. I don't know who this Johanna Bennett is but this article has all the makings of a 10 minute thrown together quicky article. Very little research was done on her part. That is what makes me so mad. The article should be titled Zagoren vs. CD&Co. She must be an intern or recent hire because anyone involved in this industry would realize what CD&Co. is up too. Some points: 1. She says "the only brokerage firm covering the OTC bb stock has advixed investors to sell their shares" Nonsense!! CD is not actively "covering" PNLK. Do you really think CD has tried to contact PNLK for the real story! No way! CD simply saw an opportunity and threw together a release. 2. She goes on to say "..CD research report issued last week contained the sell recommendation-a rarity in financial circles.." A rarity because no house would bother following a company they would not recommend to their clients. Incredible that she did not ask herself why??? 3. Zagoren came across as a professional. 4. What does the title mean? "Internet Chatter Accompanies Rise and Fall of PLNK" Have we really seen the fall? Come on!! People, I have no interest in hype. If this is a good company, and I believe it is, it will rise on its own merits. However, people on this board must rise to defeat scurrilous and false allegations. Johanna Bennett's phone # is 201-938-5670. I will get her fax number tomorrow morning. This poorly written and researched release needs some feedback from us. I suggest that we fax DJ and Johanna Bennett and let them know how we feel about this release. My view of DJ Newswires has fallen a notch or two. Gordon Campbell