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 : American International Industries Inc. OTC BB Symbol EDII -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ColinD who wrote (296)	7/11/1998 3:44:00 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4814

ColinD, sorry to jump in here, but "waking up and smelling the roses" may be needed in your analysis. You do realize that Janice has been suspended from SI before (earlier this year)? Therefore, this SI collusion you mention is rubbish: "We realise that these people are all your friends but when this is the fourth occurrence on a separate thread you have to see that they incite people to post all this maliciousness...You need to be impartial if you are going to wield your power and tinker with the right of free speech." Maybe J is just telling it like it is and that certainly falls under fair play here at SI. She is under jurisdiction of the same rules as you or any other SI member, and SI has made no hesitation proving it. (Post #300, btw <g>)

To: ColinD who wrote (296)	7/11/1998 4:20:00 AM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4814

ColinD: Pray tell, which 4 people do you speak of? BTW, what *"right of free speech"* do you refer to? Last time I checked, the Bill of Rights applied to government action. Private entities like SI are free to set whatever use policies they wish. If SI doesn't want to see people posting negative comments about people who part their hair on the right instead of the left, they're free to give them the boot. Frankly, posting the telephone number of a poster just because one doesn't care for his/her posts is outrageous. Based on what I've been reading on this thread tonight, a few folks rightly got tossed. JMHO.

To: ColinD who wrote (296)	7/11/1998 4:21:00 AM
From: Mr.Manners	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4814

<<they incite people to post all this maliciousness>> Is this sort of like 'the devil made me do it'? They are supposed to be adults and have the implied capacity that carries with it the control of their responses in a measured degree acceptable under the Terms of Use. A person would have to be utterly delusional to believe that what occurred was deliberate and planned. I believe you might find the consensus opinion in complete disagreement with your statements.

To: ColinD who wrote (296)	7/11/1998 4:27:00 AM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 4814

To all, Well, now that this thread may be a little cleaner, I feel a bit better about being able to post here. I have some general questions for anyone familiar with 144 filings, and some specific questions for those of you familiar with EDII. First up, the EDII questions. In what capacity, if any other than major shareholder, do the following people serve EDII: Brian Rodriguez, Rodney Rayburn, Harry J. Brooks and Michael M. Hanna? If the answer is "who knows?", then how did these folks acquire enough shares to make them file a 144? What is the relationship of Elk International Corp to EDII? (Yes, I read the earlier post that said that the owner of Elk was the brother of Daniel Dror, Board Chairman of EDII, but the brothers' relationship does not explain the companys' relationship. For example, was this a simple investment opportunity by Elk International? Or did Elk actually finance one or more of the recent EDII acquisitions, and somehow receive EDII stock in the transaction? If so, was this previously publicly disclosed?) I have the same questions re: Daniel Dror & Company. Even though Mr. Dror serves as Chairman of the Board, Daniel Dror & Company is a separate entity and therefore should have a distinctly separate relationship with EDII. Mr. Dror's personal stock holdings should not be co-mingled with Daniel Dror & Company stock holdings (in my opinion). Next up, the 144 filing questions. When an insider files a 144, they are merely stating an intention to sell, not necessarily an obligation to sell. Is this statement correct? If so, then the 144 filing could mean that these particular insiders are merely preserving their rights to sell in the future, not actually selling. Or it could mean that all six persons/entities have an immediate desire to sell within the specified time period. Either way, we can all agree that it is at least a big red flag for now. Correct? Do the NASDAQ rules that limit the percentage of holdings an insider/officer can sell each quarter apply to BB stocks? Would the NASDAQ rules for BB stocks permit someone to transfer personal stock holdings to another entity without a 144 filing? In light of the new rules coming up in August for BB stocks, is there any reason for insiders to sell in advance of those new rules being instituted? In other words, is there reason for concern on the part of common shareholders that insiders may be trying to avoid (with or without justification) one or more of the new rules? All for now. Thanks in advance for any answers. KJC

To: ColinD who wrote (296)	7/11/1998 4:45:00 AM
From: taxikid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4814

free speech? this is an investors forum, where the rules of the management and creators are the constitution, you don't like it? start your own web site. get off the guys back. We joined to express thoughts and trades and goals. All sides of the stock market. including shorting bogus stocks. allow others the right to do what they want before you trample them, because after the rights of your enemies are gone, yours are too. taxi

To: ColinD who wrote (296)	7/11/1998 10:17:00 AM
From: Josef Svejk	Respond to of 4814

Humbly report, ColinD and All, please feel free to contribute to this new thread - #Subject-21974 Cheers, Svejk abitare.it

To: ColinD who wrote (296)	7/11/1998 1:41:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4814

This used to be a very nice thread until the MTEI thread had been completely raped and the pack moved on to the EDII thread. I may be biased, but I'd say the MTEI thread has vastly improved of late. More information, more civility, many fewer screaming hypesters. ...you have to see that they incite people to post all this maliciousness. SI has rules. Everyone is aware of them. The issue is really very simple: the people who were banned or suspended broke those rules. I did not. Intelligent adults are capable of demonstrating self-control, and also realize that there's nearly always another point of view. As I've noted many times before: these threads exist for the purpose of discussion. It is not appropriate to meet questions and criticisms about a stock or company with vicious personal attacks. The people who do this are not heroes; they're immature louts.