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 : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tonto who wrote (50729)	8/4/1998 7:29:00 PM
From: Mr. Stress	Respond to of 55532

You are going to eat those words in a big way buddy. I've had it with your crap. You are a fraud and a liar.

To: tonto who wrote (50729)	8/4/1998 7:33:00 PM
From: Just My Opinion	Respond to of 55532

tonto: I have to disagree with you, here. If this ends up a a bust, which it seems it will, I do not think that the fundamentals were the cause. I think the officers of the company are to blame. Remember, there are usually always ways a company can extricate itself from a mess. This company had probably the greatest shareholder support of any company, you could name. I beleve that had they been more honest with the shareholders there could have been a way found to have pulled this off, if in fact the squeeze scenario is true. They, (the officers) IMO, didn't try. JMO.

To: tonto who wrote (50729)	8/4/1998 8:43:00 PM
From: DJ Byrne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Tod, When are you going to finish your hard facts? dj

To: tonto who wrote (50729)	8/4/1998 10:17:00 PM
From: Angel D	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 55532

tonto, Sorry pal, but this is where you are way off base. The only thing the WSJ has a grasp of is how to sell newspapers. This was written by a "staff reporter". That means it is someone who has put together a story good enough to get it published and she got paid for that story. It doesn't mean that she did any investigation, knows any thing about the subject, whatever. She wrote a quick and dirty story and paid her rent, that's all. The last time I saw a story by a "staff reporter" for the WSJ that concerned me, it was probably written by Manuel Asencio himself. In it was the statement that although Asencio is 100,000 shares short in XXXX, he thinks everything they say about their product is fraud. This is the kind of garbage that the WSJ prints from their "staff reporters". That is, anything to sell papers. When it comes to the staff reporters of the WSJ, they are no better than the National Enquirer. Please don't tell me how they have a grasp of the situation and they have very good reputations. All the WSJ wants to do is sell newspapers. Don't make out like it is some biblical message or something. An article by a WSJ "staff reporter" has no more credibility than anything written in the National Enquirer. tonto, if you would like to take this private, I will be happy to tell you where I am coming from with this. Regards, AD

To: tonto who wrote (50729)	8/5/1998 5:07:00 AM
From: Ellen	Respond to of 55532

>> Now the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are also dupes? I think not Dave. They have a very solid grasp of what goes on here and they have excellent reputations. << A very solid grasp of what goes on here...? If you are referring to SI in general...maybe. If you are referring to this particular stock...I seriously doubt it. It seems highly unlikely that they have read all the messages on all the related threads and really have that solid a grasp on what goes on here. And I'm so sick of people using the word "hype" disparagingly when more than likely what people like you are referring to is better classified as "cheerleading" their stock or merely saying positive things about their stock. I'm so tired of those who expect shareholders of any stock not to say anything good about it. That's a stupid stance.