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 (2582)	5/20/1998 4:12:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7491

Let me get this straight. You only want questions that already have answers? Well that will surely be an informative conversation. Sounds to me like you want cheerleading representations by company management only whispered over the phone, like the days before these questions started arising and the questioners were getting shouted down. So good luck. Go with it and if I see misrepresentations and facts unverified, save only by verbal conversations with management, I'll be there to lend you a hand in keeping the facts straightened out.

To: JOE TURMAINE who wrote (2582)	5/20/1998 4:19:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7491

Sorry, Joe, but the only "information" available is that which CSHK chooses to make public. Or, on the other hand, apparently chooses to share with its supporters, who do not choose to make it public. This seems to me extremely odd, as positive information could only help stock price. We've, as is our unfortunate wont, made some jokes here, but we've also--yes, yesterday and today--raised some substantive and important points. What about the change of domain? What was the reason? And the change of address for Zitec, a supposedly established company? And what about the "assumed promissory note"? Sure we put "questions that have been asked over & over again". Why not? We've never had any answers. I can only say this: if I were Rhonda, I'd put everything on the table. Why the hell not? Psst! You wouldn't happen to know who the suppliers for the kitty litter raw materials are, wouldja? Aw....never mind. I realize stuff like this must be Top Secret!

To: JOE TURMAINE who wrote (2582)	5/20/1998 4:38:00 PM
From: CatLady	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7491

Good luck with your new thread Joe, It'll be a handy repository for the company press releases when we want to look at them. What else could go there? The FL incorporation records? Beyond that there's not much that's verifiable and that's what's troubled some of us all along.

To: JOE TURMAINE who wrote (2582)	5/20/1998 5:42:00 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7491

Sounds good to me, Joe. Other stocks have the same thing, so it should work. I still have questions, but I see nothing wrong with posting news that relates to the stock. With your permission: I have been reading the Yahoo thread for CSHK, today will be the last day I do that. A couple of questions came up, so I will answer them. To Bruce: Your post 1363 is illustrative of the reason why I won't be giving you my address. Your posts are annoying, juvenile and hostile, IMHO. I am old and wise, I've had my fights and I've got my scars, I've been through all of that before, I don't care about your childish threats. Have your pilots visit someone else, my pilots are busy. You wouldn't like me anyway. Find something else to occupy your time if you wish. To Houtexman: Please notify the SEC, I am asking you to personally notify the SEC, OK? Just notify them right now, and post us that you have done so. I heartily agree that violating ethical principles is just as bad as breaking the law. I am very pleased to hear you say it. We are in total agreement. You comment about half-truths is timely. Let's take any Nasdaq stock. Or any Vancouver Stock Exchange stock for that matter. The company MUST make the facts public. Cashco does not have to do that because it is a BB stock, so people ask questions. These questions are quite ordinary, they are the kinds of questions that any Nasdaq stock IR person will answer. If the question is not appropriate, the IR will not answer the question. This is simple stuff. When 3COM acquired U.S. Robotics, the terms of the agreement were material to the shareholders. Not disclosing material facts that could influence the company is bad for shareholders, IMHO. It could also violate the SEA of 1934. Why mess with that? Why? So in this case, we (meaning the shareholders) are left with a bad impression, IMHO. Management can deal with that however they choose, but I did not start investing in the stock market last month. I am not an idiot. There are a lot of unanswered questions, one being who did CSHK's IPO/shell merger/211. I have not been able to find that out. Is it an obscure fact that nobody cares about? You can call any seasoned investor that invests in IPOs and tell him you just heard about a new deal and note the first question he asks you. I strongly disagree with your assertion that less information is good. There is no such thing as "full disclosure". Call CSCO's sales department and ask one of the salesmen what's in the pipeline and you will see things get very chilly very fast. But details of a contract that have a material effect on the company are just that; material facts. For example, the Merced/11th Hour agreement. It's now changed. There is a promissory note involved. This brings up lots of questions, one simple one is: Why the note? It begs the question about cash on hand, but further, it points to the possibility that Merced did not develop the software. If that is true, then the shareholders could get screwed royally if something went wrong...like a missed payment. You get the idea? These things are important, IMHO. If you are fine on not getting that question answered, that is OK, but don't denigrate me if I want to know. I don't need to call the company. I want to see it in writing, in public. Otherwise, it's just smoke. Like I said, I didn't start yesterday, I went to school and paid my fees in hard earned money. What else can be said, you ask. My answer: Whatever I want to say, whatever I want to ask. Who is the attorney? What are her credentials? What is her track record? She is being paid with money from a company I own. I'll ask whatever I want. If you don't like it, that is fine. I have a lot of unanswered questions. My "other side"? I try not to pick fights, but I try not to walk away if somebody picks one with me. I have the X-Rays to prove it. BAWK!