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 : Caye Chapel -- CAYC --- Currently Undervalued -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve who wrote (36)	6/7/1998 11:07:00 AM
From: OFW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 112

You seem to have over-reacted to what I previously posted, Steve: This is what I posted: I think you're on the right track now Steve. I'm really proud of you for finding those little tidbits. Now if you dig a lot deeper, into other company names and other individual names you might be able to find a lot more. And maybe you should expand your search into considerably more than 24 wells --- who knows maybe as many as XXXX wells --- maybe even more than that. And of course, all of that will still be only the tip of the iceberg. Steve, read the above very carefully. I didn't say that there were other violations. All I said was that you might find more information if you checked into other company names and other individual names. I think it safe to say that this is true. I also said that you might want to expand your search to many more wells. I didn't say you would find anything --- I only said that you should check more wells than just the 24 that you said you had checked. And regarding the tip of the iceberg, I guess you will interpret that anyway you wish. Finally Steve. For some reason you appear concerned with something called the Texas State Securities Commission. I suggest that you contact them directly with whatever questions you may have. If you believe that I have posted "libelous and slanderous" information on this thread here is my challenge: Please specifically post any statement which you believe I have made which is "libelous and slanderous" and I will respond. However, Steve, you should be very, very specific in your identification of any statements you allege are "libelous and slanderous" in an honest effort to allow me to respond. Again, Steve, please be very, very specific, citing post numbers and the specific reasons why you believe this post to be "libelous and slanderous" --- and if you possess information which establishes my statements to be "libelous and slanderous" please provide that information so that I may have the opportunity to verify that information. I look forward to the opportunity to clarify any statements you believe are "libelous and slanderous". Offie