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 : DGIV-A-HOLICS...FAMILY CHIT CHAT ONLY!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paulmcg0 who wrote (21858)	8/16/1998 9:52:00 AM
From: RocketMan	Respond to of 50264

Why do you attack his challenge instead of taking it? It is his challenge, but I will offer you the same one and no, it does not include a reverse split. Why should it? We are only a dollar or so away from the $4 price needed, and plenty of time to get well above that.

To: paulmcg0 who wrote (21858)	8/16/1998 11:42:00 AM
From: Gary Jacobs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50264

paul, keep thinking small. i will add this, the VALUE of my shares at the end of the year will be greater than the value of those shares today. now, isn't that what it's all about? do us all a favor (including yourself), just reserve judgement until the financials are released, and if that isn't completed within one month from this post then you can resurrect this post and have a laugh at my expense - with no response from me. now lets take a look at the facts. since you originally came on this thread bashing this stock absolutely NO devastating information has been found (and hordes of people have been looking!). the worst that can be said to date is that there's not enough recent information publicly available to discuss the compnay's current financial situation. you are talking to people who understand that the numbers aren't there yet. those that require hard numbers are gone (or should be) until they are reported. what has changed is that the technical issues that you and your friend val picked at early on, have now been addressed by the company. now if you considered that a negative in the past then you have to strike it off the negative list now. and additional relationships have been reported. now you criticize these announcements because you say they can't be verified - but that's not true. the relationships have been confirmed by people from this thread making contact with those involved. what can't be confirmed yet is the actual financial elements of those arrangements. i'll give you that. so it goes back to my point above, give it until that information is released before you attack it. so there, with no malice intended, is my response to you. i really don't mind questions that make us dig for information. but having identified a missing piece of information doesn't mean it doesn't exist. regards. gary