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.

Biotech / Medical : SANGUINE CORP. (SGNC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: V$gas.Com who wrote (1452)	6/19/1998 10:24:00 PM
From: Prospector	Respond to of 5402

HAHAHAHAHA FIGURES.... Prospecter (still saw one of them wanted posters) I guess the picture was a little faded..hahahaha

To: V$gas.Com who wrote (1452)	6/19/1998 10:24:00 PM
From: Profiteer	Respond to of 5402

Robert: What is he one of them Judy Garland want-ah-be's?

To: V$gas.Com who wrote (1452)	6/19/1998 10:24:00 PM
From: Jim B	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5402

I knew Janice SHell was actually a man.. but didn't know his real name... found that out from a lawyer.. don't know if Janice Shell (Mike Hunt) really wants his real name posted around.. might be kind of uhmmm.. risky seeing as how LOTS of people really like him/her/it.. anyway, nuff about FBN and Janice and all that junk... if you talk to the SEC they'll tell you that the FBN thing "could" be considered a problem if someone was to bring a case saying that they bought the stock FBN (and it does exist)... only to find out it's NOT the FBN they thought they read about... which they obviously didn't read much.. but if you read FBN posts here and there and not all the way through.. you'd get confused pretty easily.. I casually mentioned it to a rep at the SEC once... they just said, "well, I personally wouldn't have anything to do with something like that.. could be considered misleading"... but they said it would be hard to prove.. oh well.. point is these people are a waste of conversation.. so why are we talking about them again?? jim