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: John Chapman who wrote (2991)	5/27/1998 11:10:00 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7491

"The other side ... posts that CSHK is a scam..." John, I must have missed that post or posts. Could you point it/them out to me, please? I do wonder if lumping all those people together in an amorphous group like that is really wise. I suspect that they are all individuals with varying tastes and opinions in varying matters.

To: John Chapman who wrote (2991)	5/27/1998 11:12:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 7491

John it is rather disingenuous of you to describe other's positions as saying that CSHK is a scam. Additionally I do not recall anyone ever saying that CSHK employs a felon. Certainly felony involvement has been a question that was evasively dealt with by CSHK corporate counsel. I see that your desire is to mischaracterize and poison with your rhetoric the positions of others. I guess that we know now the level of sincerity with which you were looking for participation in your repetitious posting scheme. Looks like you were just looking to get something else to distort to your needs.

To: John Chapman who wrote (2991)	5/28/1998 10:39:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7491

This side has refused to participate in fact finding with shareholders; instead preferring to do "DD" amongst themselves. Some times facts are created based on other "facts" that have no basis. Wow, John. You really are a piece of work, aren't you? What we find, we post on this thread, which is more than you do. When did you last offer us a "fact" of any kind? You claim to have received answers to your questions in the course of conversations with Rhonda, but you haven't told us what those answers are. (Though I, like jhild, prefer fully public disclosure, not second-hand accounts of phone calls.) And what about your little "investors' cartel" over at Yahoo, who take the absurd view that non-shareholders have no right to information about the company?

To: John Chapman who wrote (2991)	5/28/1998 12:32:00 PM
From: John Chapman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7491

Ver 1.12 NEWCOMERS : THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST IS TO SET OUT THE POSITIONS OF BOTH SIDES OF THIS DISCUSSION FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE CSHK has three products they are preparing to market. We shareholders think they have a lot of potential. They have no earnings at this point. They are a BB stock and do not report now. You can decide to join us in this stock or you can decide not to. I and others use our real names in posts and our e-mail addresses are posted. The other side posts that CSHK is a scam, has no products, never will have any products,the products are worthless even if they had them, its managment is incompetent, a felon is employed by CSHK, the company has employed a worthless IR firm, and a host of so many other bad things I can not keep track of them all. This side has refused to participate in fact finding with shareholders; instead preferring to do "DD" amongst themselves. Some times facts are created based on other "facts" that have no basis. An example is a post by jhild at exchange2000.com which is an all emcompassing statement that is not true. All companies do not put on their press releases where they are incorporated. Another example is a post by Janice Shell at exchange2000.com which is a conclusion based on arguments such as "apparently", "probably", and "is said to have". Every new milestone announced by Cashco has been instantly challenged through what is called questions or DD. They are non shareholders. One of them has posted that they do not wish to be classified as on this side, but to date has not offered a summary of what his/her position is. Another has posted that the above is not his/her position, but has not responded as to what his/her position is. One considers it a game to post positions so newcomers can readily see it. The best help you can get is to call the company and read the press releases at exchange2000.com IF EITHER SIDE WISHES TO RESTATE ITS POSITION: PLEASE FEEL FREE TO OFFER REVISIONS OF THIS POST