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: aleta who wrote (9811)	7/2/1998 9:42:00 PM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

"I would defend your right to ask someone hyping another stock here to leave, so why wouldn't I do the same for DCLK? " I fact, I have asked people not to hype other stocks on this thread, when that has happened. I don't think it's right for others to take advantage of investors who are probably mostly holding a losing position, trying to lure them into what is probably another losing venture. You know that this happened when ZULU was near a recent bottom, and I even urged people to hold on to their ZULU, rather than follow one of these idiots into another bad investment.

To: aleta who wrote (9811)	7/3/1998 2:14:00 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

>>>Aleta, you should be thanking me; not criticizing me! Don't hold your breathe! The people at DCLK don't want hype for ZULU on their thread and you're using the excuse of answering Jon as a reason to hype ZULU over there. You don't just critique Jon, you go into more of your overblown explanations of why you're speculating on ZULU. That's hype! I would defend your right to ask someone hyping another stock here to leave, so why wouldn't I do the same for DCLK? If it's wrong to argue with Jon here then it's wrong to argue with him anywhere else as well. Has anyone talked to the new IR lately? I've never received a return call from them. Is there anyone still there? At least we could contact Mary and Heather. As you can tell I'm not impressed with IR at the present time. Here's hoping they get it together in the very near future.<<< Ironically, Aleta, what I posted on ESVS/Yahoo fits what you've written above.

To: aleta who wrote (9811)	7/3/1998 2:36:00 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

Is this so bad a response over at Doubleclick's thread--a place I'd never been to before (were I hyping, don't you think I would have visited there long ago?). Aleta, you should think about how YOU fit in into all of this. What follows is a reasonably good example of my kind of dialogue over at Doubleclick: To: +Steve Antonelli (327 ) From: +PartyTime Thursday, Jul 2 1998 3:54PM ET Reply # of 341 >>>Jeez Party time... LET IT GO!! We don't care about ZULU, good or bad... This is a DCLK thread! Give it a rest... <<< No problem, Steve. I'm more than happy to let it go. I've been an avid Zulu investor since September. And you'll note not once have I ever crossed over onto this thread. But for months I've been watching Jon Tara's vendetta against Zulu, as he continually poisons and spills his venom against the stock in which I've chosen my investment. I was tipped by others that he had arrived here. I didn't want his arrival here to go unanswered. As you can see in just the short bit of debate on this thread, he spills his venom and then disappears when challenged on a key question, i.e., relative to Zulu keynoting at the Chicago conference. I'm more than happy to let it go, so long as I'm confident that he is not tainting Zulu on this thread. Zulu is new and it deserves to develop on its own merit. In closing, many of us who are veterans with Zulu, believe some day it will rise to compete against Doubleclick. In the meanwhile, we appreciate seeing Doubleclick raise the bar of competition. Congratulations. PS: If one were to include the work that Zulu does for Netscape, Lycos and Infoseek, I believe a case could be made for higher Zulu figures as well. But time will tell in all of this.

To: aleta who wrote (9811)	7/3/1998 2:52:00 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

Frankly, Aleta, at this stage, I don't care what you want to hear or what should be where, read this: <- Previous Next -> Message 2208 of 2215 Reply reverse split ajammer_99 Jul 2 1998 7:26PM EDT To do this you need to do a total valuation of a company's net worth. ESVS has 7.3 mil mkt cap and awesome debt. what else? You can guess that zulu will bring another 50-75 mil in worth in revenues. what about that 20+ million for acquisitions If you guess at 50 + 20 + 25 mkt cap/47 mil. I come out with 3:2. Did you ever notice a company offering 90 per share to buy a co. that is selling at 75. That is because of the additional valuation of assets that we don't have privy to. At any rate even 39 million in revenue negates any thing as radical as 10:1. We already have over 12 million shares invested when we purchased 80% of ESVS. Look at their last filing before Zulu rescued them. When you perform a shell merger you don't give up your net worth to the shell. Esvs was little more than a shell. Why would the purchasing company give up it's shares on a 10:1 basis to the shell. This is never done in reverse mergers. Did you notice that contrary to past weeks, ESVS stock has been almost stagnant on large volume, whereas it had been rising dramatically on small volume. The extra volume is insider selling. That is why the price has stagnated. The split (dividend) was done in order to create a market where they could sell off their extra shares before the merger. All the releases coming out of ESVS also helped. This was also done to create a market for the stock. You can guess but you cannot make an absolute evaluation without the balance sheets. I know with ESVS you don't even have any revenues to evaluate. The ONLY value they have is their NASDAQ listing and 20% ownership in zulu. AJ aj It's an opinion. It's his. And I think it's a good one.