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 : CSHK CASHCO MANAGEMENT Y2K -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CASHCO who wrote (5069)	8/2/1998 1:23:00 PM
From: jhild	Respond to of 7491

These plants run their own business and don;t need to be bothered by the likes of jhild etc. I stand by my statement and that of A.R. Brooks that we have supply and will have as much supply of product as we need. I do not need to tell anyone the names of all my suppliers from bags, to art work etc. Get real. If I say we have supply...then by golly we have supply. We also have bags and they look great. Hey, I think its called being in business... Well there you go official refusal from Rhonda. So you will tell your most favored supporter. You will offer to arrange a plant tour for him. (That of course is not wasting their time.) Maybe even let him take a few .jpegs to post to show that these plants are for real. But make that public information for all to see. Make it a level playing field, with verifiable identification of your sources, and it's turn tail and run. No one is asking for your artwork suppliers. Even the bags. Who cares. But where are the wood droppings coming from? Can the supplier even produce enough? Do you really have a contract to have them produce? Now those are things that I am asking. What are you hiding Rhonda? I sincerely hope that it is nothing. It is surprising that you are not being forthcoming if indeed you have nothing to hide.

To: CASHCO who wrote (5069)	8/2/1998 4:32:00 PM
From: John Chapman	Respond to of 7491

Cashco: It will be a glorious day when all five plants are running at capacity. That is the day I am holding out for. Thank you so much for all your long hard hours getting things going to that end. Despite the endless resource draining criticism, you have endured. Lets see. So far, Cashco has the lousiest no good for nothing Y2K, cat litter and chat program in the world. Management is a bunch of directionless incompetent, hooligans. Oh, and all future unnamed products are worthlesss as well, whatever they will be. Wow! How did you keep your cool and manage to get anything done? Bravo!The shareholders hat goes off to you. I can't wait for the next product. I have been with you through three promised products and two of them are at the marketing stage. I am assured by news releases that the chat program is forthcoming as well. Please promise me 20 more.

To: CASHCO who wrote (5069)	8/2/1998 6:28:00 PM
From: TEDennis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7491

Rhonda: Well, I see this thread is active again. This time, there is a semi-heated discussion about the identity of the litter processing plant. This whole discussion would come to a screeching halt if the name and location of the processing plant that is in the "Show Low area" would be posted by somebody. Anybody. Preferably from an official corporate source. Maybe I should call the company, ask for the name, and post it myself? I wonder if I would be given the name if I called? Frankly, I don't care who is producing the litter, so it's highly unlikely that I'll call. The issue here, if I'm reading jhild's posts correctly, is "selective disclosure". I have to agree with jhild on this issue. Whatever information is released to some people should be released to all. That's one of the responsibilities of a public company. Equal access to information for investors ... shareholders or not. If there were any harm in identifying the processor in question, I could understand the reluctance to make it public. But, if there were harm in it, then there shouldn't be any "selective disclosure", either. If the information was released to a few folks and somebody later decided that was a mistake, so be it. Just say so. However, the information that has been disclosed "selectively" should be made available to all concerned. Otherwise, there are people who have "inside information". Something the SEC is very sensitive to. This attitude of "I know but I'm not tellin'" is childish, in my opinion. The only reason I could see for not sharing disclosed information would be if the persons who were given the information had signed a non-disclosure agreement. There's one other possibility that I haven't mentioned. Perhaps the posters who have claimed to know the information ... don't. Perhaps they commented about it to increase this thread's readers' confidence in the future of the kitty litter product. I would hope that's not the case, but we ARE dealing with human beings here, and human beings are not infallible. Just my two cents. No flames, please. TED