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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Caussa Capital (formerly Antares) T.CAU -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/5/1998 5:01:00 PM
From: Ray Fidler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4718

John: I warned you. I'm happy to see that the Antares team has acted to stop the statements you have been spreading about Mr. Gray and the others. Regards, Ray Fidler

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/5/1998 5:26:00 PM
From: Luc Beaugrand	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4718

Now that you are in the open .... Could you answer some question? 1) Any rollback coming ? 2) Gundy -Greenline- Jones Gable .....trio ????????? Trade times are local to the exchange. News times are Pacific. Bid/ask/vol sizes in thousands. Sym-X Bid - Ask Last Chg % Vol $Vol #tr Open-Hi-Lo Year Hi-Lo last trade News delay ANZ - T 5.0 0.175 ú 0.185 13.5 0.18 -0.01 -5.3 49.9 8 9 0.19 0.19 0.18 1.06 0.17 Aug 5 11:48 Jul 28 15 min RT 5› Click the symbol for more quote detail and fundamental data Trade Workstation - Market Depth - 1yr Chart - JAVA Charts - Company - 1yr Bulletins - Historical - Options - Short - Portfolio Most Recent Bulletins Date Type Headline 1998.07.28 11:33 News ReleasePrefeasibility study commences on Jambi zone; Phase two starts at Creek zone Last 9 trades today Time XPrice Chg Vol Buyer Seller 11:48:06 T .180 -.010 2500 44 Jones Gable79 Gundy 11:48:06 T .180 -.010 400 44 Jones Gable79 Gundy 11:47:30 T .180 -.01013000 9 Nesbitt 79 Gundy 11:47:30 T .180 -.010 4000 44 Jones Gable79 Gundy 11:36:24 T .190 .00014000 44 Jones Gable7 Green Line 11:36:24 T .190 .000 3000 44 Jones Gable44 Jones Gable 11:36:24 T .190 .000 5000 44 Jones Gable44 Jones Gable 11:36:24 T .190 .000 2000 44 Jones Gable7 Green Line 11:36:24 T .190 .000 6000 44 Jones Gable44 Jones Gable other ???

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/5/1998 6:08:00 PM
From: Cytotekk	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4718

Antares, this forum is for opinions and exchange of information. If your shareholders are unhappy with your management they have a right to their opinion, as do you. Your post came to my attention on another mining thread and I have come to see for myself whether you have just cause for your claims. I do not hold any Antares stock and have never even heard of you. I have reviewed the posts that you have listed as being slanderous/damaging and almost all of what you object to is indicated by the poster to be speculation, conjecture, and his opinion. Angry shareholders can be found all over these threads. The more money they lose, the angrier they can get. Late financial filings bother a lot of us shareholders. Spending stockholders money going after an SI posters seems to me to be a big waste of money. If none of the mentioned posts are factual why not ignore or respond on the open thread refuting the claims that bother you? I hope you do not appear to Protest Too Much with your legal actions, it does not look good when a company cannot withstand slings and arrows. Just my opinion, which I am entitled to on these public threads. Respectfully - Cytotekk

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/6/1998 12:33:00 AM
From: Intrepid1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4718

Dear Antares management, as you are so touchy about criticism perhaps you can spell out exactly how much money you have have made trading Antares stock in the past two years. And by this I mean onshore and offshore accounts? Long trades and short trades! How much money has management made on their stock options? Also how much money has management drained from the treasury for their own personal use? Also could you please provide details of all your official and unofficial investor relations contracts. When you have done all the above you will then have the right to complain about critical posters! People who live in glass houses... And take your legal threats and stuff them up one of your barren drill holes. purething

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/6/1998 1:41:00 AM
From: stockclub	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4718

It absolutely boggles the mind that a company could be so limited in its knowledge of public relations to make a threatening post like that. Did you read the papers on the Philip situation? How about McDonald's vs the activists? I read some of the posts listed and found very little that could be considered objectionable, and certainly no reason for threats of frivolous legal action. I am quite certain you have no intention of pursuing the matter, and are only trying to intimidate the poster(s) you don't like and/or SI into stopping any 'negative' posts. What a great forum it will be when everyone just sings the praises of management and states their expectations for a soaring share price. Can we expect you to object to irrationally optimistic posts as well? I think your post proves without a doubt the validity of management's incompetence. Rather than a witch hunt against SI posters, why not put the effort into achieving results that will prove him wrong? I would sincerely hope that SI management ignores this post and takes no action against John. If anyone hears any of any ramifications to John, please post. In fact, I think SI should post an explanation if any action is taken.

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/6/1998 2:41:00 AM
From: marcos	Respond to of 4718

Ooooooh, bad Antares. Bad, bad, bad. Very stupid move to threaten an SIer. You might have done well to take a lesson from the press that General¡simo Rolando Flamingeh of the Tonto Stock Exchange received when he threatened a member of our community #reply-4693975 I don't really follow this thread, I've lurked it in the past but not much. I likely wouldn't have given much credence to any individual poster. But now I will. To 'john'. You have just confirmed whatever he said. Welcome to SI, Antares ......... do try to wake up ...... cheers ..... marcos

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/6/1998 9:23:00 AM
From: Ally	Respond to of 4718

Well, I heard the news of yet another Canadian public company threatening libel law suit over postings of its critics, and I came to this thread to find out what the commotion is all about. After reading the posts, here's my food for thought (thank God, it is a free country and I can still express my opinions and views freely) for those of you in the company's executive suite: * People who read/posts on Internet stock discussion groups are mostly do-it-your-selfers investors. The big money investors use analysts, brokers, and financial planners. If you've been spending time monitoring and worrying over what the small fishes are saying about you, it reflects on your sense of priority and how you manage the company. * Since you are a public company, you have a higher standard (have a thicker skin) of being able to withstand criticism and open protests over how investors and potential investors perceive the way you are managing the company. Afterall, even if you mismanage, the shareholders still pay you handsomely right to the end. * Shareholders who may feel that they've been "taken" by the company tend to posts angrily on the stock discussion groups. Internet discussions are similar to protestors carrying potentially libellous placards walking back and forth in front of your building informing the world of the injustice they view they have suffered from management's deeds. * Investors nowadays are very cognizant of any diversionary tactics by management to blame others for the ill-fortunes of the company. It is especially distasteful and repugnant of any money spent on lawyers funded by shareholders to silence critics and whistle blowers of the company. Investors want to hear opponents as well as proponents of management. The dynamics of threads of well-managed companies will invariably silence critics and drive them away without the need for the company's intervention. Don't believe me? Just try and be critical on many of the SI threads, and see how quickly you'll be mob attacked and driven out! Thus, anytime a company finds it necessary to intervene itself to drive away thread critics, is indeed a bad omen for the shareholders. * The best way to silence your critics is to get your house in order and make your shareholders proud of your performance in running the business. * Your legal action will only likely bring bad press and attention to the stock performance, and will depress it even further. Just see what happened to Philip's stock price ever since the day they tried to silence internet critics. Personally, I don't invest in junior exploration companies. I have always wondered WHY in the world investors would bet their money on a bunch of strangers who tend to imply though glossy annual reports and heavy promotions that they know how to strike the "rich veins". Junior exploration companies are generally under-funded, under-expertised, and simply under-resourced and uncompetitive compared to the big guys. Maybe you fans here would enlighten me... out of 1000 junior explorations companies, how many will survive and enrich their shareholders?? My guess is probably less than the number of fingers on one hand.

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/6/1998 10:03:00 AM
From: UNDERTAKER	Respond to of 4718

I mostly lurk in these chat rooms. Most times I don't agree with John's tone, Yet he still brings some good points to the forefront on your company. For the past Four months I have been researching Antares, looking for a place to enter this stock as it has been dropping. Your latest move on the internet leads me to pass on your company. Welcome to the 21st century Antares. Good luck to you all current shareholders as the company can't stand the heat in the kitchen. UNDERTAKER

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/6/1998 12:39:00 PM
From: Terence Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4718

TO: Antares Management Your post is disturbing for what is "not said". If Anatares is legitimate (as opposed to promotion), if Antares has objectives, strategies and a program to create wealth (as opposed to manipulation) the what on earth are you afraid of John for ??. Good properties along with a well managed exploration program will create share value, if John is a threat this suggests your agenda is somewhat clouded at best. If you are above board then John's comments should have created a giggle (such as we'll show the fool etc etc) As an Investor in Antares I have seen my shares erode and erode, so what are you doing to repair the shareholder value, what are you doing to create shareholder wealth, who cares what John says (his comments are merely a distraction). Why don't you expend effort creating news releases to keep us informed, why are you WASTING shareholder money on frivolous cases (and lawyers) which have anything to do with exploration or putting drills in the ground. Terence Mitchell

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/6/1998 3:22:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4718

I confess I'm puzzled by your post. Are you perhaps unaware that SI threads exist for discussion--pro and con--rather than for cheerleading? There've been a lot of threats made recently, to a number of SI posters. Some are your brand of attempted intimidation, others are even nastier. Just a hint: this is no way to convince potential investors to take a chance on your company. All you're likely to reap from this move is some embarrassing publicity.

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/6/1998 5:10:00 PM
From: rhythm	Respond to of 4718

"...to put you on notice that "john" should be prevented from using the "chat" to libel Mr. Gray and Antares. We therefore request that you advise "john" immediately to stop making the types of statements he made in Reply Numbers 3851, 3872, 3873, 3880, 8331, 3883, 3891, 3894, 3901, 3927, 3963 and 3965..." Would you like to precisely specify exactly what john said that was in your opinion libelous, and precisely what he said that was not in your opinion libelous? Or is it your intent to entirely destroy his right to comment? One more question. This company had a lot of cash eighteen months ago. Where did it go? Who's got it now? Why, and for what? Thanks in advance.

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/7/1998 10:23:00 PM
From: Donald F. DeKold	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4718

TURN TURN TURN...EVERYONE! We should all turn from the madness that misplaced reality brings. Antares is not as good nor as bad as we think. John is not as good nor as bad as we think. In fact, both Antares and John are the same now as they were before BRE-X. With that fateful episode, the rules, the status quo in Canadian investing we all enjoyed, changed. Bre-X transformed not only Canadian mining, but other industries, including securities, insurance and banking. It transformed venture capital, as well as bank lending. It transformed the spec market, as well as traditional investment. All, if not in kind, certainly in degree. Instead of lines we find curves. Instead of straight edges we have jagged ones. Errors are magnified and differences are heightened. In fact, what we were once prepared to accept or be comfortable with, we now reject or are made uncomfortable by. There is no answer at the moment, except, of course, what time always brings and that we seldom know of and certainly can't control. We should all be grateful for the times that John was right on in his criticism, notwithstanding what has occurred over the last year. We should all be grateful to Antares who, for one shining period before Bre-X, showed that the small investor could be smarter than Bay Street. In fact, more than a few of us bought back their high priced paper ($3.35) at prices well below $1. Could John have been less caustic? Yes! Could Antares have been more proactively communicative with investors? Yes! Antares burst the bubble by going on last year's Western trip. On the other hand, John and everyone who saw that they were not "descendants from Mount Olympus" should have sold their shares then. The tip off for John and others was such a trite event. It happened when Dennis Gray said that Antares would not incur the expense of an "800" number. What the Grays save you in the mine, they lose you in rough markets such as what we've had since the collapse of Bre-X. There is no right or wrong here, but there is a much fabric to allow for slack. I think we are getting OUR money's worth with how Dennis and Antares has run the company, though it is difficult to see through the Bre-X mist. However, Dennis, since it is OUR money, why don't you loosen up your grip on the wallet for once and give the forum and your other faithful investors an "800" number? It might seem silly, but the gesture may very well speak far more than you might think on first thought. Call Bell Canada on Monday and DO IT! The ball will then be in John's court!

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/8/1998 3:52:00 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 4718

A number of company representatives post to these threads #Subject-16262 As human beings are wont to do, they display a wide spectrum of clarity/obscurity, intelligence/stupidity, hypesterism/realism, usefulness/crap, etc. Your own performance to date has been imho less than exemplary, but clearly you have an account and monitor the thread, so don't be bashful - speak up and tell us what you think and what you know. Practice makes perfect. By the way ... I understand that you have made the aquaintance of the poster John Menzies 207.183.153.73 - he also represented his company on these threads, and quite ably imho, until he loaded up on a gazillion cheapo options and got a cease trade order slapped on the company because he couldn't get it together to fix the books up and make the filings - then late in April he seems to have slunk away with his tail between his legs. So since he's not around to ask, my direct questions to you are; 1. What is the current situation with the Steppe financials? 2. When may we reasonably expect Steppe to trade again, if ever? 3. What if any is the involvement of Paul Gray in and with Steppe? Full, detailed, and prompt answers would be acceptable. Thanks in advance .... marcos

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/8/1998 8:57:00 PM
From: Mr Metals	Respond to of 4718

Start building those shelters boys. EC has you guys pegged:-) exchange2000.com Mr Metals

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/11/1998 2:33:00 AM
From: Graystone	Respond to of 4718

Antares or john Well, you are certainly much quieter. You speak clearly, and enunciate well, these are not skills that john is noted for. OK, for the sake of argument, I will agree that so far, you are at least, smarter than john. You should be aware that you have attracted attention, heheheh. It is good to see that you are cognizant of this world. We see many company IR Reps and Company Officers but I believe you are the first company I have met on SI, thank you. We are not subscribers, we are members of a community, as you now are. marcos is entirely correct, you have come here threatening john and now you are getting rougher weather than john has the ability to create. You might have considered that. There is no polite way to threaten someone, and in this world, I'll sue you, or stop posting to me (made famous by "the Larry") are the equivalents of, "I am taking my ball and going home". The things we say here matter. This is not a court of law, it is however the court of public opinion. Does anyone doubt that john's remarks were read by people who cared. Look at the situation now, is it any better. john is a jerk, his remarks only served to reinforce that. Your response to john gave them weight, far beyond their value. You should have just sued john and saved the $200.00 bucks. We all would have learned about it later and laughed. Now you have a problem.

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/11/1998 2:45:00 AM
From: Graystone	Respond to of 4718

SI or Antares I have no trouble identifying with Dennis Gray's distress, notice we may be related, heheheh, and I think john is uncouth, vulgar and rude. Here is your problem : <<In fact, you, now with notice of the libel, will be also held accountable for the repetition of any further libel from "john" on the "chat".>> You have some kind of nerve. In your first post you make an entirely useless threat. This post makes you smaller than many seen here on SI. I am tempted to come over here and bash on your company in an entirely legal fashion, just for fun, and your distress. SI is not liable for john's libel, you are however liable to be considered a real menace to small investors if you make stupid statements like this one, not that you already aren't. SI can hurt you or help you, you however are powerless to make it what you want without being here.

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/11/1998 10:04:00 AM
From: john	Respond to of 4718

Good morning VIETNAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is this the demilitarized zone........ opps another war...... back to this one........ Firstly, to all forum members, I was NOT on holidays it was work, but I would definitely be libel if I said I did not have any fun after the trade show closed. Secondly, after reading this post by "Antares" I have come to the conclusion that the world class mining company from Toronto did not join Silicon Investor. I think Antares wrote to Silicon Investor with the idea of getting me either kicked off the forum or put in the penalty box for a while. I base the above on the following line in the post: <Please advise immediately as to the action that you are prepared to take to put a stop to this improper use of the "chat"."> Have I got this figured out Dennis or did you actually join Silicon Investor on the advice of your lawyers to announce this lawsuit???? Thirdly, I am reviewing the posts in question, ie printing them out and going through them and I will comment privately to Antares and their lawyers. One question for Antares, would you be so kind as to direct me to post 8331, I can not seem to find it, did you proof read your note to SI before sending it????? Unfortuately, because of this business / fun trip to Las Vegas, I am required to leave the country again for some further meetings and I will take these posts and review same during this trip. If you would have your lawyers e mail me I will send directly to them my comments, I will not be retaining legal advice until I see the statement of claim, also Dennis please have your lawyers e mail me and I can arrange to pick this statement of claim up it will save some time, this is going to be a 3 to 5 year ordeal for Antares and their lawyers anyway. The cost of this legal action to Antares will be considerable and I am willing to save them the cost of a process server, call it my little part for ANZ shareholders. Also Dennis you should really instruct Bob Yeoman not to hang up on callers when questioned about certain "promotors" of this Antares stock. Yes he actually did Dennis, when he said he did not know this particular person in question, he actually hung up when he was reminded a year ago that he said he had met this person on two occasions. I guess at that point Bob had enough, kinda like caught in the act. Dennis if you would like to add this point to the lawsuit this person is prepared to testify in a court of competent jurisdiction regarding this conversation. Dennis, Bob also told this person that Antares did not care about their stock price that this matter was more important, is that true?????? I can not believe that Antares does not care about their shareholders. I look forward to clearing this matter up with your lawyers in a business like fashion, as I said I will review these posts and we may or may not be able to move forward.

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/11/1998 5:45:00 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4718

Thirteen and a half cents quote.yahoo.com I guess it just goes to show, huh.

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/12/1998 11:02:00 PM
From: john	Respond to of 4718

AN Apology No rather an addition to further clarify. The following was part of my post to Antares responding to their famous or should I say their world famous letter to the web mistress, and there is a first part to this piece as follows: Firstly, Bob Yeoman was asked if he was sure everyone at Antares was "squeaky" clean, his response was yes they are. Fair enough and I would accept that, but low and behold the caller asked the following questions as copied from my post.......... <Also Dennis you should really instruct Bob Yeoman not to hang up on callers when questioned about certain "promotors" of this Antares stock. Yes he actually did Dennis, when he said he did not know this particular person in question, he actually hung up when he was reminded a year ago that he said he had met this person on two occasions. I guess at that point Bob had enough, kinda like caught in the act. Dennis if you would like to add this point to the lawsuit this person is prepared to testify in a court of competent jurisdiction regarding this conversation. Dennis, Bob also told this person that Antares did not care about their stock price that this matter was more important, is that true?????? I can not believe that Antares does not care about their shareholders.> It was only after asked about "squeaky" clean that the questions concerning "promoters" came up, then the phone got slammed down..... Oh how the spider weaves the web and catches its prey........... Bob do you remember the conversation,,,,,,,,,,, darn I have hung up on people too,,,,,,,, but they were not shareholders in a public company ,,,,, asking............. apparently sensitive questions. The Energizer Bunny TAP ..... TAP ....... TAP.......

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/13/1998 9:33:00 PM
From: john	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4718

Antares remember these days.............. July 18/97 Message 1793479 followed by.............. July 19/97 Message 1795841 followed by................... July 21/97 Message 1803248 these could be very significant comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Note the order and the dates...................... you decide the significance............... o kay.

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/15/1998 10:27:00 AM
From: Luc Beaugrand	Respond to of 4718

IANAL (written only) I am not a lawyer (used as a disclaimer before offering quasi-legal advice on the Net)

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/19/1998 9:34:00 AM
From: john	Respond to of 4718

A reasonable solution to one of your problems. 1 Paul Gray resigns from Antares board, several weeks later his firm CR Capital several weeks later his firm CR Capital receives cash or stock fees from one or more of the private or public financings that occurred. 2 Because Paul Gray was both a director of Antares and a shareholder of CR Capital at a point in time when it was apparent that those capital sources would invest in Antares, CR Capital should never have received any fee. Whatever Paul Gray claimed to have arranged as a principal of CR Capital was actually his obligation to perform as a director of Antares 3 In Fact Paul Gray's resignation from the Antares board and subsequent activities on behalf of the company were not only self serving but reckless as Antares was left with a management vaccum which is yet unfilled 4 To remedy the above situation and show good faith to Antares shareholder's Paul Gray should cancel both the above mentioned fees and all the fees and options received in the recent Steppe deal. He (Paul) should return to the board of Antares until the company's share price is restored to the levels where it was when he resigned 5 Antares should do the following: 1 Extend "exit packages to both Peter Southward and Robert Yeoman, both of whom have been unresponsive to shareholders, but have been creully indifferent to shareholders concerns over the total collapse in Antares share price If Antares is unwilling to do this then they should at the very least get a 1 800 number and have Cynthia Dean handle all shareholder calls not Yeoman or Southward 2 Antares should immediately fill the president's position with a professional business manager

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/27/1998 2:56:00 AM
From: john	Respond to of 4718

Hey Antares check this out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Message 5599875 I especially like this part............... Well johnboy, if Antares get their suit going, which I really doubt, and you need to hide some things, well, I think you already know the drill. ROLMAO

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	8/27/1998 3:06:00 AM
From: john	Respond to of 4718

Here's another one for you Antares Subject 13943 an example of how you manage a company........... but then again they have professional managers not mental midgets running the company. Just my opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	9/17/1998 10:33:00 PM
From: john	Respond to of 4718

Hey Mr Gray................. who is the LIAR in your company...........??????????????? in case you you can not reply stay tuned, I'll have some thoughts on that.

To: Antares who wrote (4006)	10/10/1998 3:01:00 AM
From: john	Respond to of 4718

Hey Dennis NO lawsuit yet, someone in your company wrote the following........... <leaving both Antares and Mr. Gray with no alternative but to commence legal proceedings against "john" to put an end to this conduct.> SO big Denny who's the LIAR in your company, I doubt you started legal proceedings..................?????? Golly I am awfully bored tonite, stuck in cheerleader Wayne's town overnight.