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 : MIDL .... A Real Sleeper -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Whitetigr who wrote (3800)	8/16/1998 8:55:00 AM
From: Jack of All Trades	Respond to of 7039

Good post Whitetiger, we must all think about this. Mark and Charlie have been using their own time and $$ to help the shareholders fight for justice and bring value back to Midland. JMHO JeffG

To: Whitetigr who wrote (3800)	8/16/1998 11:43:00 AM
From: Dusty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7039

Whitetifr, My real reason for wanting to "clean" house, is simply this; to create a savory stew one does not put new ingredients into a dirty pot. Either does one add tainted veggies to the stew. There are many on this thread and we all have differing opinions; that is to be expected. Sometimes common sense needs to be applied to correct something that has gone wrong; everything has gone wrong with Midland. This is not to tar and feather anyone, but the company's legal counsel who was charged with the responsibility of making sure patent(s), financial dealings, and other legal matters pertinent to the company were under control does not appear to have done so; like it or not the store was not being tended; the resulting fiasco speaks for it's self. So to say,Pierce, is doing all he can to now cleanse the shell is in my opinion, a little after the fact. I know others will not agree, be that as it may; had Mr. Pierce been acting as legal counsel for any one of us on this thread, he would have been dismissed; common sense dictates it. I realize that money is a problem for Midland; this would not have been easy but via shareholder involvement, this company could have and should have been taken by the shareholders. It has been said the shareholders own 51% of the company. Perhaps, a meeting of the top dozen shareholders could have been called together to direct matters. Shareholders I believe would in an effort to save their investment and that of others would have rallied to the cause. But, to allow someone who appears to have poorly tended the company business in the first place to continue; makes no sense. These are facts not fiction and should have been dealt with long ago. Dusty