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 : DGIV-A-HOLICS...FAMILY CHIT CHAT ONLY!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dgivinvestor who wrote (18867)	7/21/1998 8:14:00 PM
From: Kurt_Ruckus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50264

Hi everyone! dgivinvestor, is this article different from the July article on the SOTM website that people pointed out last week? Thanks. Kurt (feeling glad that a swimming pool will be greeting him at his hotel if he ever gets out of the office)

To: dgivinvestor who wrote (18867)	7/21/1998 8:34:00 PM
From: Craig K	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50264

You know Mr. DGIV investor...you are doing the same thing that you accuse the rocketeers of doing....acting like you have some buddy buddy relationship with JC...coming in here and telling us mysterious stuff like that...I feel in good hands with you....please take care of me...please!!! Make sure you tell me when to sell.... Craig

To: dgivinvestor who wrote (18867)	7/21/1998 11:38:00 PM
From: Gary Jacobs	Respond to of 50264

dgivinvestor. please, don't represent yourself as a spokesperson on my behalf. i am an independent investor. i bought my ticket for this ride without your guidance and held tight through all the turbulence. i can speak for myself. regards. gary

To: dgivinvestor who wrote (18867)	7/21/1998 11:43:00 PM
From: Charliss	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50264

Dear Larry, < I am working with DGIV management to prepare an upcoming article about our comany. We want to submit a unified position to their subscribers that's why I asked you not to respond individually. We don't want to send out mixed messages or things that are not completely accurate. So, again, I encourage you, if you are contacted, not to respond directly to them. If you want to confirm this, contact Mr. Jim Chin or Mr. Roger Templeton directly at 310-584-0750. If you care about our company, we need to work together...> ---------------------- This is about the craziest thing I have ever heard since I have been an investor in this company. Is this supposed to be a subtle form of bashing....by making DGIV management look like idiots? On the other hand, if this is true, maybe I really should reconsider my own intelligence....and thus my investment. Charliss

To: dgivinvestor who wrote (18867)	7/22/1998 1:01:00 PM
From: Scottoo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50264

This guy is a certifiable pecan, almond, you name it. See all of his previous posts and ignore him

To: dgivinvestor who wrote (18867)	7/22/1998 8:32:00 PM
From: dch	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 50264

Your post yesterday bothered me sufficiently that I went ahead and called Roger Templeton to, as you suggested, "confirm." You said: >> I am working with DGIV management to prepare an upcoming article about our comany. << Roger said you had called him and informed him you had been contacted by SOTM (he wasn't sure if it was a website or newsletter) and that you were composing a response and wanted him to verify everything you chose to say would be ok. He agreed to look it over, since he is willing to help reduce the amount of misinformation disseminated about DGIV if he can. That, to me, is a far cry from what is implied by your assertion that you're "working with DGIV management to prepare an upcoming article about our company." Your phrasing made it sound like there was a collaborative effort going on between you and DGIV officers to compose an official company document with the intention of having it published via SOTM. Balderdash! I asked Roger if he knew you. Other than having seen your dgivinvestor posts on the thread and having spoken to you when you called and asked that he review what you said you were working on, his answer was "no," he didn't actually know you. He also didn't think that you "knew" Jimmy Chin--at least not in the manner implied by your post and in other earlier posts by you. He said that Jimmy is rarely taking calls from investors these days, in the interest of preventing leakage of sensitive information, or if he does take a call from an investor, he tells that investor that he can't say anything. Zip. Nada. I asked him if you were affiliated with the company in any capacity (something other than being a shareholder). He said "no." You said: >> We want to submit a unified position to their subscribers that's why I asked you not to respond individually. << When you say "we" you imply again that you are in concert with DGIV management and that they and you have come to this decision about a unified position to be presented. It seems clear to me that this is something that you have fabricated. You may have suggested that having a "unified position" would be important and/or that having accurate information presented to SOTM was in DGIV's best interest, and Roger may have, at such a suggestion, said something as benign as "sure." But you've blown such a tacit agreement way out of proportion. You're not an official representative of DGIV and you're not an official representative of the shareholders. You may want to be official. And you may truly want what's best for DGIV. But you are truly overstepping your authority and you're misrepresenting your relationship with DGIV and the facts. It's ridiculous for you to expect every DGIV shareholder to consult with you before saying anything to SOTM or any other investment entity. No one appointed you the sole, authoritative conduit of DGIV information, except you. You say: >> We don't want to send out mixed messages or things that are not completely accurate. So, again, I encourage you, if you are contacted, not to respond directly to them. << You again imply with "We" that you're speaking on behalf of DGIV management, which clearly isn't the case. I think it's ludicrous to think that any publication would contact any shareholder who is not also an employee of the company and expect to get authorized or accurate information about the company. I suspect that you in fact contacted SOTM and offered to prepare some information on DGIV. They returned your call and thereby enabled you to say they contacted you. Why else would they contact you instead of going directly to DGIV? If you have a legitimate explanation I'd sincerely like to hear it. You said: >> If you want to confirm this, contact Mr. Jim Chin or Mr. Roger Templeton directly at 310-584-0750. << I did. That was good advice. Thanks. --dch