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 : TSIG.com TIGI (formerly TSIG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JEFF BERRY who wrote (3263)	8/6/1998 1:23:00 AM
From: Steve Lin	Respond to of 44908

======Jeff A. Berry Distorts Facts====== JAB you should look up the word "assumption". I said you made an assumption that Gordon's loan is fake. This is your rebuttle: "Poisontaster, I have never stated that the TSIG loan is a fake. I have presented arguments that suggest that the loan could be suspect, possibly a smoke screen, masking the true extent of the cash crisis." Hello! How is that not an assumption of your that TSIG's loan is fake. Would you rather call it innuendo, conjecture, speculation, argument.... What would be the word you choose. It is an unjustified ASSUMPTION based on your DISTORTION that Gordon can convert his debt into shares at ANYTIME. You stated that he can convert his debt into shares at $0.15 at ANYTIME. You state it as a FACT. ====================================================================== Reply #910: "Additionally, the note allows Mr. Gordon the option of converting any indebtedness incurred under the loan at any time into tsig shares at .15 a share..." =====================================================================

To: JEFF BERRY who wrote (3263)	8/6/1998 1:31:00 AM
From: Steve Lin	Respond to of 44908

======Jeff A. Berry Distorts Facts====== JAB you deserver every adjective I used in my report about you -- crafty, insidious, nefarious, arrogant, imperious, impudent. You pontificate over other people about the signifigance of Solid DD. You deride them about not reading SEC documents carefully. You are the one who has DISTORTED FACT. You are the one who has MISREPRESENTED. Who gave you the right to hold that kind of attitude towards people. If your intention is right, you would help them. Not belittle and harrass them. If you got your FACTS straight, maybe you have a place to stand on. But you don't. So you deserve every word I used plus more. Respectfully.....Of Course.

To: JEFF BERRY who wrote (3263)	8/6/1998 1:37:00 AM
From: Steve Lin	Respond to of 44908

======Jeff A Berry Distorts Facts====== So far, JAB, you have not responded to my challenge to present evidence on the two DISTORTIONS OF FACTS on your part. You may choose to mince words and bombard us with rhetorics. The truth remains that you DISTORTED FACTS to support your NEFARIOUS ASSUMPTIONS in order to fullfill your INSIDIOUS GOALS. So far Part I and Part II of your rebuttle is fluff. I hope you can come up with some EVIDENCE tomorrow to refute me. Respectfull.....and resting pretty assured.

To: JEFF BERRY who wrote (3263)	8/6/1998 1:48:00 AM
From: Steve Lin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 44908

=======Jerry A. Berry Distorts FACTS======== JAB why do you have to wait to present us with evidence, if you done your DD. If your evidence supports your assumptions. I'm openminded. Tell us what you're waiting for. JAB your Part I and Part II are just stall tactics. You said you agreed to answer my challenge. But you don't. What you do is come up with useless rhetorics. How can you blame me for bantering on you? Before you talk too haughty, back it up first. Come up with some evidence. Refute me. Earn my respect. I'll gladly announce my mistake. I will public apologize to you. Until then, you have no ground to stand on. Respectfully.......once again.

To: JEFF BERRY who wrote (3263)	8/6/1998 5:00:00 AM
From: TOPFUEL	Respond to of 44908

stuff a sock in it . What your writeing is like pissing in the wind and not getting wet you are all hearsay SHOW ME FACTS NOT ASSUMPTION ON YOUR PART..

To: JEFF BERRY who wrote (3263)	8/6/1998 8:03:00 AM
From: Dixie7777	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Jeff, nice work. Better than a cum laude law student. JAB, what you have posted is a significant writing. Certainly more than a quick note dashed off between appointments. What I continue to miss is a motive. What's your motive for putting so much effort into these, and you have done these writings often, but just what is your motive if you are a *disinterested party?* Or could it be that you are not a disinterested party? I, and I believe many of us would possibly give your writings, really negative assumptions, because that's all they really are, but if we knew your motives for doing such writings, possibly we could make a better judgement about your negative assumptions. After all, if you were an attorney for the SEC, that would possibly give great weight to your negative assumptions about Mr. Gordon's actions. Let's see... if Mr. Gordon is the kind of person you have indicated, maybe he has hired you so that he could acquire more cheap shares. Really Mr. Berry, until we have your credentials, your negative assumptions about Mr. Gordon's actions carry little weight around here. On the other hand if you were an ex-employee of TSIG, we would make another judgement about your negative assumptions about Mr. Gordon's actions. Furthermore, if you were an research attorney hired by a competitor, which you may or may not be, but if you are an attorney, and were hired by a competitor, we would make yet another judgement about your negative assumptions of Mr. Gordon's actions. You see Mr. Berry, no one here on the thread will believe me if I tell them the share price will be at $4 by the end of August because they know where... well, they know where I'm coming from so-to-speak. By the way I do believe the share price has an excellent chance of being at $4 by the end of the month, but what do I know? I do know that if the share price gets over $2 Rob Gordon will have an outstanding corporate currency with which to negotiate acquisitions. A competitor would do well to do everything in its power to keep the TSIG share price low. At least for awhile so as to get it's own marketing plan further along. After all not one company of any repute, currently in the Internet CD business is making a profit. And you know what, none are projecting a profit for the foreseeable future. And do you know why? Because they have to spend enormous percentages of their gross just to get the word out. TSIG will not have that burden. Worse for them, TSIG will be able to turn a large profit by selling for less money than all of these high profile companies. They will have to lower their selling price to compete. That will put significantly greater strain on already bleak projections. And as they lose more market share only one or two Internet CD retailers will be left standing. Could it be that someone is really afraid of TSIG's potential to dominate this market? Mr. Berry, you really need to cough up your real motives for anyone here to spend any more time reading your work; and we all know it's work... now don't we? Rich

To: JEFF BERRY who wrote (3263)	8/7/1998 8:42:00 PM
From: Steve Lin	Respond to of 44908

Dear Jeff, You really should answer my direct questions. Your past rebuttals are just more of your attempt to slip more of you unsupported wild conjectures. You need to present evidence, Jeff, to gain credibility. We're open-minded. We're not adverse to negativity. What we are adverse to is unsupported negativity. But before I give you any more leeway, why don't you answer my direct question: Did you say the Gordon can convert his debt into shares at $0.15 at any time? Answer it, now, before you lose more credibility. ====================================================================== Also, Jeff, I was wondering if you can shed some insight on another question. Why did you concede that I was right about the 6,480,000 shares (reply 3337), when just the day before I presented evidence that Gordon indeed can sell reoffer prospectus shares to the public without filing a form 144; and a retraction to the public that I was wrong? Could it be that you don't have or can't the facts straight? Please enlighten me. ======================================================================