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 : Zulu-tek, Inc. (ZULU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (8946)	6/16/1998 12:30:00 AM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

PartyTime, I am not defending Kevin Lichtman's past actions. I won't even say that they are completely irrelevant, as it's difficult for the leopard to change it's spots. But then that same argument is valid against Hayton. You can't have it both ways. And that is where YOUR logic is severely flawed. You found a skeleton or two - or a dozen - in Lichtman's closet, and now you want to use that to "prove" that there is something untoward about his "stinky stock" designation of ZULU. But you want us avoid applying the same logic in Hayton's case. The fact is, Lichtman's past in no way affects the truth or lack thereof of the allegations he and Wired has made. While it may affect the believability of Mr. Lichtman, it in no way changes the truth. And, anyway, as you've pointed-out before, he was only parroting what Wired already said. But I suppose Lichtman is an easier target. Lichtman, at least, has responded to the allegations against him. (And I have to say that I respect Don Bauder, whom I presume wrote the San Diego Union article - Bauder should be everybody's #1 source of stinky stocks!) But Hayton and Zulu-Tek still have not or can not respond to the allegations made by Wired and Stock Detective.