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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bmart who wrote (2606)	8/29/1998 5:26:00 PM
From: TopCat	Respond to of 26163

>>>rather, it appears their agenda is to persuade, through speculation (hype) and innuendo (misinformation).<<< Pugs, This would appear to be exactly what your agenda has been. So, what's new? TC

To: bmart who wrote (2606)	8/29/1998 5:32:00 PM
From: Mr. Forthright	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

1) For the last time, I am not part of any group and strongly believe there is no SI Basher Group. 2) A link to factual information on the court case would be appreciated. 3) It would appear that you post, which is aggressive in nature, would contain promotional statements of a questionable nature. 4) What is your interest in this stock? Why are you so active on this thread and who gives you all that info about the "stock" which seems to be your focus. Why not tell investors about the fundamentals of the company instead of shoving down everybody's throat your theories about market manipulation, short-selling and some unclear and unproven conspiracy to defraud investors? No real investor with real money would ever buy 1 share of a stock based on your recommendation as you lack credibility, seem to focus on irrelevant issues and demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the investment business which is so typical with small-time hypesters. If you are right about this company why do you worry so much about what people have to say about it? That being said please keep posting has you provide me with an unprecedented daily dose of humor.

To: bmart who wrote (2606)	8/29/1998 6:45:00 PM
From: wonk	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 26163

bmart: ...they used 1995 disclosure statements in an attempt to corrupt 1998 realities,... You continue to state the this -- for lack of a polite way to say it -- ouright lie. Let us recap some issues from the past 9 months with this company. 1. PR regarding revenue and earnings projections. No Safe Harbor disclosure and probably would not qualify even if there was one. The earnings projection clearly qualifies as an attempt to mislead. exchange2000.com 2. PR on stock redemption and stock redemption plans. Appears to be illegal plan on its face if notification has not been given and an offer made to all shareholders to convert to preferred. exchange2000.com exchange2000.com 3. Outstanding shares count in PR not consistent with report from transfer agent. exchange2000.com exchange2000.com 4. No 8K filing as of yet regarding the most recent transfer agent change. 5. Resignation of auditor. Two filings propose mutually exclusive and conflicting stories. Amended explanation in direct contradiction of auditor's statements in prior SEC filings. Furthermore, disclosure does not appear to be in compliance with Regulation S-K. sec.gov sec.gov Regulation S-K law.uc.edu 6. Explanation for delayed 10K for 1997 is given as auditors resignation. Explanation for delay in second quarter 1998 10Q supposedly due to pending determination of intellectual property rights which heretofore have never been listed on books despite the existence of a contract between the parties. Mutually exclusive excuses. exchange2000.com 7. Clearly false PR regarding number of outstanding shares which is documented to be false by company's own SEC filings. exchange2000.com 8. Company supposedly prosecuting a court case regarding the illegal injection of restricted shares into the public market. However, the company has made no mention of this fact in SEC filings, and has actually stated in said SEC filings that there are no pending legal issues. If alleged stripping of legends stock is true, then the lack of public disclosure appears to be in clear violation of the requirement to disclose material events. See Items 1 and 2. sec.gov 9. PR claiming cream which prevents AIDS. Since there have been criminal prosecution of AIDS sufferers who failed to disclose that fact and infected others via sexual relations, one could reasonably hypothesize a capital crime prosecution if the company markets a product with this claim if it has no basis in fact. ...Or will you smugly dismiss my contentions as "hype"? You choose to ignore these issues. Consequently, a rational observer can do nothing less than ignore your contentions as hype. ww