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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Engine Technologies (AENG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lonnie who wrote (270)	5/24/1998 11:54:00 AM
From: Roger Bodine	Respond to of 3383

Back to the engine. Does anyone have any additional information about the Univ. of Wisc. test or demo (no repeat posts needed)? Are there any other independent tests scheduled for the near future? I would appreciate seeing 'other' sources that can give documentation on performance. Thanks in advance. Roger

To: Lonnie who wrote (270)	5/24/1998 4:30:00 PM
From: Greg Cummings	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3383

Lonnie, I appreciate you sharing your opinion, but I'm only John Q. Public and nothing more. I'm not quite sure why it's ok for you to publicly assume I'm lying, but I can't assume Mr. Counts by 2 is a mole. These boards are filled with people attempting to further their purpose, whatever that may be. If I smell a mole, I'm more than happy to let the rest of the public know. I attempt to tell only the truth and further the goal of the shareholder, not the short. I've never shorted a stock and never will. When did the company announce details about the U of W testing? I've already admitted being wrong with my details on that one. Again, I do not represent AENG in anyway. Also, I never saw the web page where they listed something to the effect of....Bulletin Board NASDAQ. Personally, I still think of the BB as the NASDAQ BB and I believe many others do too! I consider this a minor oversight, not an attempt to deceive. My method of obtaining information has taken many years to develop. I obtain information from numerous sites and sources. Brokerage firms and the internet are my main sources. I've had many accounts at many firms for years. Why do people have one broker at one firm? I guess it's the simplest way of doing business, but it's certainly not the best way to keep yourself informed. Brokers are willing to dig. Some dig very hard! The possibilities are endless! I agree with you guys, let's get on with business. Exposing a mole is no fun, but sometimes it must be done. Of course, everyone knows that the only phone call I'd like them to make is to their broker(s) to buy more stock. Nothing else would be appropriate. I have absolutely no desire to damage any firm in anyway! IMO, this stock is poised to go higher, with or without us. The rumors are big, VERY BIG! I actually feel sorry for any firm that is short this stock. Is there anything I can do to help you short guys? I'm serious, this must be painful! What a great three day weekend! The surf was perfect this morning. Can't wait until tomorrow AM. I think every weekend should be three days long. What do you think? Shall we write our congressmen? Best of Luck, Greg

To: Lonnie who wrote (270)	5/25/1998 2:56:00 PM
From: WMG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3383

It cuts both ways Lonnie, Having been a stockbroker for seven years in the early Eighties, I can speak from experience about the treachery of investing. Scams and scoundrels abound, both in large cap stocks and large institutions (the Baldwin United/Merrill Lynch episode, Pru-Bache and RE LPs, etc.) to numerous penny stock houses of ill-repute. I once witnessed a fellow stockbroker execute a short squeeze on a thinly traded, small float stock where, with some speculative good news and a pot of money coupled with ordering out all certificates to the clients, he and a few other stockbrokers ran the stock from $6 to $280. On several occasions the trading desk was calling begging him to sell some stock so they could cover their losses on the short positions. Additionally, some of the lesser known and less ethical houses, especially in the BB-OTC market, will violate SEC regulations on the amount of stock they can legitimately short and the time period they can hold the short position without having borrowed certificates available to cover the position. I believe this is what Greg might be sensitive about. If the trading desk of Fahnestock, or a firm like Fahnestock, where to short this stock for its own account in large enough quantities without the corresponding stock certificates available, they could in theory and practice artificially depress the price of the stock. They would be in violation of SEC trading regulations, but the SEC has more to do than to police the trading desks of member firms who in themselves act as policemen of the scam artists in some of these companies. Please remember that the public investor cannot short a BB stock because they not marginable securities, only Market Makers can short these stocks. Bottom line, it's a two way street. Some professional short sellers will resort to unethical activities like "seeding" reporters with inaccurate tips and hearsay in order to entice the reporter into writing a negative story on the hopes of breaking a scandalous plot to steal the public's hard earned dollars, when in fact the short seller is upside-down on a trade and just needs an opportunity to mitigate his mistake. Please don't misinterpret what I'm trying to convey, I'm not defending anyone nor chastising anyone, just pointing out that everyone has their own agenda, and many times we do not know what that agenda or the motivation for the agenda is. --WMG