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 : DGIV-A-HOLICS...FAMILY CHIT CHAT ONLY!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ronaldo who wrote (8939)	5/27/1998 8:48:00 PM
From: Secret_Agent_Man	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 50264

I got one thing to say about that DGIV is NOT I repeat NOT pnlk Roger, will give them what they feel they should have. }:+D

To: Ronaldo who wrote (8939)	5/27/1998 8:50:00 PM
From: Howard C.	Respond to of 50264

As Byron said, the two cases are totally different. On the other hand...as someone who has not followed PNLK at all...was there anything said in the article that was not factual? I mean, let's not blame the messenger all the time.

To: Ronaldo who wrote (8939)	5/27/1998 8:52:00 PM
From: Moonglow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50264

Oh for pity's sakes. Why in the world is anybody worried about what WSJ wrote about PNLK?? After reading the article, PNLK and DGIV are totally worlds apart. DGIV HAS revenues...HAS contracts....has more than six employees...didn't pay $50,000 for some internet genie to laud them as the "pick of the month." I could go on and on and on. It's two totally different companies...two totally different issues. After reading what WSJ had to say about PNLK, I kind of agree with them in their assessment. So therefore, I figure that WSJ wants only one thing from DGIV....and that's to let the world know how great we are. Juanita P.S. Chuck......I've brought lots and lots of chocolate chip cookies!