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 : MTEI - Mountain Energy - No BASHING Allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Howard C. who wrote (8230)	8/12/1998 10:39:00 AM
From: Jetter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11684

Howard, In my mind there is no difference, except what the "shorters" make. They consistently label someone as a hyper, when all they are doing is relaying information. They then ask (more like demand) proof of their findings and verification, etc... On the other side, they can say whatever they wish, not supporting anything and giving no real facts... The problem with them is that they DO NOT want to know any real answers. They would rather keep asking questions and causing confusions by restating questions that no one should obviously know the answers to... Its all in their approach. Take this question...From jhild... Is anyone even sure if they are in the office? This makes two days in a row that no one has been able to reach the normally, oh, so available Jack and friends. jhild, how many ceo's or even executives do you think you could call and actually talk to? So now rather than inferring that they could be and should be busy, he infers that they might not be in the office at all... Could be at a meeting? At a laywers office? Bank? ~scott

To: Howard C. who wrote (8230)	8/12/1998 10:40:00 AM
From: MoneyBaggs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11684

Vivian just called me. I asked if she had any idea when trading would resume, and she said that she really did not know. It is in the hands of the attorneys. She did say that they should have a press release out hopefully by Friday addressing the issue.

To: Howard C. who wrote (8230)	8/12/1998 11:00:00 AM
From: M, Anderson	Respond to of 11684

I don't recall anyone bashing shorting, although, I haven't read every post. My problem is that almost every shorter, is too gutless to admit they're short, and they claim to own shares, only to bash it on a daily basis. I have yet to read a post stating, "I sold short, and think it will hit bottom." rather we hear, "This piece of crap is going downhill and will not trade for a very long time, if even at all. I hope it goes up, but with these jokers running the company, it'll probably be a cold day in hell til that happens." or words to that effect. MN. ps. Bill Gates isn't in his office either, must be a trend.

To: Howard C. who wrote (8230)	8/12/1998 11:12:00 AM
From: Dixie7777	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11684

Short is fine as long as the *intention of the poster is known.* When the intention is masked, the DD, valid as it may be, is corrupted and substantially unusable. You never know what is fact and what is fiction or being driven by what motive. I fully acknowledge that some of jhild's research has merit. It's necessary for me, and I would suspect most posters here, to know his motivation so I can be *consistent* in my evaluating what he posts. Let's face it Howard, if I told you I was from the SEC and I was an attorney, and gave you all the info to back it up, my posting might be viewed differently. If on the other hand, if I told you I was posting from the prison library in Toronto, owned no stock, and was willing to help you all because I had nothing to do with my time, I believe you'd view my postings yet another way. Even though I was posting the same info. I only hope we would all have the presence of mind to want to know what I was sent up for and if it turned out that my crime was securities fraud, and I was still loosely associated with a certain Vancouver brokerage firm you might once again adjust your level of faith in my posts. So, you see Howard, as good as jhilds DD *appears* to be we really have difficulty in judging the veracity of any of his statements, and in fact much of what *appears* to be solid DD, without some credentialing. After all, when he finds incriminating data and posts same, how do you know that more contemporaneous but contradictory positive data that jhilds might know how to access, and has not yet been published, exists? Rich