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: RBM who wrote (51477)	8/14/1998 1:46:00 AM
From: s martin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Thanks for your answer. I would think that Mork is very wealthy but I don't know anyone who would consider $400,000 a drop in the bucket... and had he not sprung into action and merely filed a lawsuit, the damage could hae been in the millions. He would have known he wouldn't have to cover but he certainly would have had to come up with a lot of cash to carry that short position. I would think he was pretty hot about being done in by a "friend". Mork would have known about the fraud from his association with Zapara who was helping Morgan and Breton. If Morgan and Breton weren't selling into the buying, who do you think was ? For every share you bought.. someone sold. Since Morgan is the one who was perpetrating the evil shorting story who else ? Remember Morgans "non-profit" organization to stop shorting ? What was that all about ? He sure didn't mention it in either of his letters did he ? Why ? I don't understand what Mork did that was illegal.. registering that name, putting up the web site etc were not illegal were they ? I think everyone realizes that for the most part BB stocks are nothing but swindles... but I don't think this group has done anything toward correcting the problem. Riley and Pugs have in fact made this site a laughing stock.

To: RBM who wrote (51477)	8/14/1998 1:51:00 AM
From: TopCat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

>>>I dunno what is to much, but the way he went about it made me suspicious all over. I do think this kind of crap happens all the time in the BB's... I have said it before, I know and have had lunch with MM's... actually an old econ prof was also an MM. (he still is) and when we sat and talked, he told me about all the BS that happens in this (the OTC) market and never gets caught. I know we can't even make a dent, but if it works once, it may work again, and maybe we can give the OTC investors hope.<<< RBM, A very good post, IMO. The serious question that remains is that with all the uncertainty in your post....how is it that you continue to remain so positive about the company????? and the stock????? Is it just to WIN one...to "give the OTC investors hope." An admiral objective....but, how much are you willing to spend to reach it? TC

To: RBM who wrote (51477)	8/14/1998 6:52:00 AM
From: tonto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 55532

RBM, any idea how much money Mork has? Net worth? I think 400,000 is a drop in the bucket to this guy, he might have to shift this or that, but he had to have that much cash in the account to maintain it, right? At what point is $400,000 a drop in the bucket?

To: RBM who wrote (51477)	8/14/1998 8:02:00 AM
From: Just My Opinion	Respond to of 55532

Rob: Good post. I think people are trying to excuse the actions of the short side by rationalization. I.E> Rmil was worthless, therefore anything goes, including crime. IMO If you apply that idea to say, IBM..would the argument hold? Remember, we are disussing the actions of the short side, so it shouldn't matter what company we are discussing on the long side. If you (not you personally, please) say no, then why not? Just because IBM is okay? I don't think we operate under "street rules". If something is illegal, then it's illegal. I haven't yet read a set of business laws that says "this is illegal, except in the case of retaliation". I.E RMIL can't excuse their actions by saying "well, we were being shorted". IMO, neither can the shorts excuse their actions by saying, "they are doing something we think is illegal, so we will too" Now as to the question of the 400,000. This is not a small amount in absolute terms, however it is an amount that means different things to different people. IMO, if he couldn't have afforded to lose it, he should't have risked it. Shorting is that way.. It's theoretically unlimited risk. I think you are correct in your overall post, Rob, maybe off a little in specifics, but the intent is what is important, IMO. Whatever RMIL did or didn't do should be analyzed, and dealt wth IMO. I also feel that the same is true of the short side. Let the SEC put two different agents in charge of investigation, one for the short side, and one for the long. Have no contact between the two. Let's see what happens. JMO