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 : Cryogenic Solutions Inc. (CYGS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Big Dog who wrote (2159)	7/26/1998 8:26:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4028

Get your facts straight, BD. (Facts really do seem to be something you guys have a major problem with.) We started in on this one when YOU begain hyping it as the greatest stock in history, the most important medical breakthrough of the century, and all the rest of your nonsense. At that time it was over a dollar, but had not by any means begun its (extremely short-lived) run. You had, you'll recall, a good deal of fun pointing out how ineffective our objections had been. Tell me something: how old is Mike Skillern? And why do you keep avoiding this question?

To: Big Dog who wrote (2159)	7/26/1998 2:42:00 PM
From: Mr. Forthright	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4028

Big Dog what is your opinion on the info posted by Jeff? Also could you comment on the reasons why you totally speculated on the content of last week's news release. Yesterday you admitted you were wrong about the content of the news release although last week-end you said the news was going to revolutionize the world of biotech. If you didn't know what the news was going to be why did you say I was going to be news deserving a comment from President Clinton? I must admit I am troubled by the whole thing. How about those who bought the stock at higher prices based on your statements? Don't you care about them? Maybe your answer will be "they should have done their own research". If that is the case why make the statements in the first place?

To: Big Dog who wrote (2159)	7/26/1998 4:12:00 PM
From: Kimberly Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4028

Federal prosecutors allocate far more resources in nailing Al Capone, John Gotti and other mafia kingpins than in apprehending small time crooks or mere narcotic users, for the very same reasons. Like the afore-mentioned federal prosecutors, Janice, Mr. Forthright and others have to prioritize their resources according to the egregiousness of the pump-and-dump schemes. When CYGS was trading at 0.5, it was akin to a small time misfit, unworthy of much attention, and only when it was trading in the 2-3 range that it was beginning to merit more prosecutorial attention. I would give you another example. Earlier this year, BAAT rose all the way from 0.17 to 3, and the SEC did not initiate an investigation into the company and the trading pattern until the stock reached 3. Moreover, most of us believe that Janice, Mr. Forthright are well meaning, fair, reasonable and prudent people who prefer to initiate actions only when they believe that they have gathered CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence that a pump-and-dump scheme is indeed in development. When CYGS was trading at 0.5, there was just not sufficient evidence for them to get involved. Very simple logic, and I am surprised someone as crafty as the Dog would have to ask this question. <<Why didn't they save everyone when the stock was .50 and save people some real money. They decided to save everyone when the stock was peaking at 3.28 Why?>> -- Big Dog