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 : MIDL .... A Real Sleeper -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dusty who wrote (2003)	7/7/1998 11:32:00 AM
From: Jack of All Trades	Respond to of 7039

The word "severed" is the key word; here concerning Mark Pierce, could indicate that he was being tried separately too. Does anyone know more about it? Dusty Dusty, The way I see it the SEC would not have severed Mark Pierce from the lawsuit if they had evidence against Mark. Talking with an attorney in my office he didn't see why they would severe if they thought he did something wrong. IMHO JeffG

To: Dusty who wrote (2003)	7/7/1998 11:49:00 AM
From: Almost Blue	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7039

Small world. I did an office lease for a Mark Pierce (attorney) about ten years ago in Tucson. Looked in the phone book and there is a Mark Pierce listed in the business section, but nothing in the Yellow Pages under attorney. Is he still practicing in Arizona? I understand the xdate is issued by NAZ, but isnt the company open for a ton of lawsuits if they do not back up their representation (split for owners as of May 29,1998) to issue shares per their press release? Thanks DW

To: Dusty who wrote (2003)	7/7/1998 10:16:00 PM
From: Binder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7039

Dusty, You can try as hard as you like to make something bad out of this, but I hate to tell you, it just ain't there! I find it ironic that you, who cried from the rafters Fisher's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, would make a post concerning Pierce with such a cynical tone. What I do not understand is why you made your post to Bender. I mean, he had posted #1981, which would be indicative that he maybe didn't know. Gary answered him on #1982, and while it was not very verbose, James acknowledged his response. It all appeared to be asked, answered, and accepted. So why do you, 8 hours later, and to Bender, who obviously didn't have the answers, post basically the same question, but in a much more accusing tone? It's not like you were just responding to the last thing posted. Sounds a little deliberate to me. What I do not understand is your motive. I don't believe you are simply trying to get "all the information". Rather, I believe that you were trying to cast doubt and further distrust of Pierce. What most people with the slightest fraction of sense can see is that this guy is our only hope of ever getting back one red cent of what was taken from us. What happened Dusty, did somebody teach you how to short? I think "sever" is indeed the key word here, but I think it applies more to what you should do with your pathetic attempts to slam this stock. Binder