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 : AREE - Formerly TVSI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cytotekk who wrote (4410)	7/3/1998 4:58:00 PM
From: I Am John Galt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6528

Cytotekk is slowly beginning to sound like an unswaying yeasayin' foo'... But anybody that invested in this company fo' the long term can't be all there to begin wit! BTW, Riley didn't see it, and I'm willing to bet that half of the people that did say they saw it are lying. And it don't matter anyways. Whether or not he called TVSI posing as whateva he wanted to, I told Pugs there's a way to prove that Kugler and tonto post to the same account. But the silly foo' didn't want to cooperate. Mr. T, Heluva Tough!

To: Cytotekk who wrote (4410)	7/3/1998 7:15:00 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6528

CY: I was viewing at the time and do not recall the "pronoun". However, that is not to say that it wasn't there. I frequently scan items and take a bulk reading of content, so to speak and therefore cannot definitively make a statement in regard to that post. I also am aware that when I read a passage constructed in such a way as was Tonto's (in fast scan mode) I would believe that such additional words were there as they would seem appropriate. I believe the SI records indicate what had happened. It is also a very tangental issue and not to the heart of the matter. People on this thread often misrepresent information or exaggerate it. Often leaving off with..."fact or fiction" as some sort of disclaimer. Want to get to the facts? Too much BS about thread posters and not enough about the principals of the proposed "merger". Lets have a look at the books of the company or companies for planned acquisition. Just a statement as to revenues or expenditures and the nature of the transactions. TG