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 : MTEI - Mountain Energy - No BASHING Allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ColleenB who wrote (3065)	6/23/1998 10:42:00 AM
From: Rangel Melendez	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11684

I just got this and John Rizzo asked to Please Post it. Janice I know of two words to describe you, Beautiful and Courteous. As you might already know I have been suspended from SI for 2 weeks for posting the same message more than once. You all know the e-mail in question, let me say right now that I did not write the e-mail, I had nothing to do with it except the distribution to some threads. The reason SI gave for my suspension is as follows "What you did was quite different. You took a fictitious post from another site, pasted its entire contents all over SI, and acted like it was real. Do you even know what spamming is? If not, I'll be happy to tell you, since it's expressly forbidden in the Terms of Use". I copied this directly from my e-mail from SI. Now to the important subject, I DID NOT WRITE THE E-MAIL that Janice Shell says that I did, post 3037. She says I apologized to her A COMPLETE LIE. I have NO knowledge about it. I did not even know it existed until macker called and told me. So I have been suspended for 2 weeks for supposedly posting a false e-mail, now lets see if SI will suspend Janice Shill for doing the same thing. If SI is really unbiased they will suspend Janice Shill for 2 weeks, if not.... Can someone please post this. Regards John

To: ColleenB who wrote (3065)	6/23/1998 10:59:00 AM
From: eric deaver	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 11684

It has come to my attention that I have not made a clear distinction between coal-bed methane and natural gas. For those of you who understand the difference and the importance to MTEI please bear with me. Someone noted that they thought the coal was of greater importance than the methane. If you are just looking at coal and coal-bed methane you would be correct. Natural gas (i.e., as associated w/ oil) will be much more important than either the coal or coal-bed methane, IMO. There has been no significant mention of it in the PR. Stagg is now valuing it. Natural gas is a resource in ADDITION to the coal and coal-bed methane. And IMO is MUCH more important. Easier to extract. Easier to transport. Higher demand. Also Jack and company are oilmen - they would likely go after the oil & natural gas reserves first, again IMOO. I hope that this clears up this issue. FWIW, Eric