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 : GLOW - Global Games, Inc. - Great Profit Potential ! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steven l who wrote (5781)	8/3/1998 11:58:00 AM
From: jjbucci	Respond to of 8879

Steven, I agree it's best to get both sides of the story, But as fact, not as innuendo laced with aspersions that a sinister plot exists. This is what has been happening here !!!! No one is afraid of facts, we are all seeking information that we can check out. It's the negative innuendo that leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. There is a major difference between facts and innuendo, as I'm sure you understand. jjbucci

To: steven l who wrote (5781)	8/3/1998 1:14:00 PM
From: BigRedMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8879

Steven1, It sounds like you are prematurely jumping to conclusions. You said. . . Here is what I have found... Gary only answers emails if you send him a nice easy to answer cream puff. Answering private e-mails from investors is tricky business. One must be extremely careful to not release material information that has not yet been published yet. More importantly, however, I sincerely doubt Gary devotes all of his working hours to responding to e-mails. My guess, however, it would probably take 40 hrs/week to respond to just the e-mails coming from posters to this thread. I'm sure Gary doesn't give first priority to those whose intent is to twist his responses around and use them against the company (I know I wouldn't). Now, with that said, the company has even been inconsistent responding to my e-mails. My experience has been Gary distributes responses to e-mails that don't require an attorney's review. Less time and less costly. I still have no answer to simple questions as to number of employees and to how their work load is distributed. My guess is a response to those questions would be taken out of context and misinterpreted. I'll give you an example. I am part owner of a software development company that currently has two FTE's. Would you be concerned as a stockholder if your basis extrapolated to a total market cap of. . .say $10 million? What if I told you we were in development half the year, already have recorded $200k in net profit with our state of the art product, and just signed a deal with a firm to distribute our product internationally? I do not understand why any negative comment on this stock is shot down. It's not the negative comments that are shot down. It is the obvious agenda by certain posters that are taken to task. It is the innuendo, jumping to conclusions, and constantly raising the same questions, most of which have been answered or can't be answered at this time. As has been mentioned several times, no one in their right mind believes there is no risk in this stock. On the contrary, I believe there is significant risk. I have repeatedly stated that. If I didn't believe that, I'd have my entire portfolio wrapped up in GLOW. I don't have a problem with people raising issues and concerns. I welcome it! (Why do you think I've been attempting to engage TGW in intelligent discourse on GLOW for the past 3 weeks?). It appears that much of this information is documented. What information??? Whether it is senate laws banning gambling. . . That's my entire point!!! There is NO "senate law banning gambling". There is a bill that has been passed by the senate that includes an amendment to limit internet gambling. It is not even close to becoming law. Additionally, we have a justice department that has serious doubts about the enforceability of such a law and maintains it has bigger fish to fry anyway. Furthermore, we have a company (GLOW) that has taken it upon itself to be favorably positioned if a law IS passed AND enforced! GLOW merely provides management, consulting and software services to internet casinos. They do NOT own them! . . . or Gary's name appearing on other companies PRs. . . Is it Gary's name appearing on another company's PR that bothers you? Or it is a potential conflict of interest? Let me school you on something. . .it is not unusual for executives to serve on the board and/or as officers of multiple companies. Especially when for legal or tax reasons, it is necessary to structure relationships so. In my former days as an accountant, I worked for a CEO who was an officer and/or director of over 200 different companies!!! 12 of which were traded on either NASDAQ or AMEX! I'm talking about a multi-billion dollar conglomeration! Now, if it is a conflict of interest you are concerned about, that needs to be resolved. On the surface, it appears that, since the two companies are offering completely different services, there is no conflict of interest. However, it has been my experience that in such situations, more information is needed. I agree that the relationship between the two firms needs to be disclosed. However, and with that said, screaming "scam" merely because Gary's name appears as a representative of two different companies is about the dumbest damn thing I've ever seen! . . .everything negative is shot down. . . Again, the PRESENTATION and MOTIVES are shot down! I would absolutely (as I have mentioned several times previously) LOVE to engage in RATIONAL discourse with someone who doesn't agree that GLOW is a good investment. I'd love for someone to play a RATIONAL devil's advocate! Why do you think I reserve my 3 posts a day for those who aren't 100% GLOW??? This stock is a penny stock. EXACTLY!! This stock IS a penny stock!! It's VERY, VERY, VERY, Risky!! Now, with that said, I happen to believe it has enormous upside potential (MY OPINION!). I KNOW the company isn't reporting! I KNOW the company has produced little if any revenues this year! I KNOW the company doesn't have an extensive operating history! I KNOW none of the contracts (except one) have been finalized yet. I KNOW the revenue estimates in the PRs are the optimistic projections of management. It's a risky investment! That's why the stock is trading so cheap! Let's talk about something original for a change! No one is insulting you. . . Actually, several folks have made feeble attempts at insulting me. . . .your wife. . . I don't think ANYONE on this thread is THAT low! . . .a friend. . . I consider to have friends on this thread. . .and many have been insulted. . . .or your dog. . . I don't have a dog. . . . by reporting bad news on this stock. TRUE! Only because no one has yet reported bad news on this stock! You should all be glad to get both sides of the story so that you can make wise investment choices. I'm still waiting for the other side of the story! Steven1, you should feel honored! You just took up my third post of the day! GO BIG RED!!!