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: Just My Opinion who wrote (3391)	9/2/1998 9:56:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

I think in the complaint they want a permanent injunction against him, so I wonder if that included internet postings, too. Don't think so Al-len... If it did, I would be heading for the ACLU's doors so quickly it would make your head spin. Although I'm sure you all wish it did proclude me from posting. The facts are that I "published" a free GRNO Gossip Newsletter for my fellow GRNO shareholders in 1996-97. It contained a disclamatory paragraph clearly stating that anything stated was my opinion and only that. (kinda remind you of Riley's private email letter for RMIL, eh??.. Didn't he say some mighty positive things about RMIL?) That paragraph also informed others to do their own due diligence and not base their decisions to buy on my opinion. I did this since holding GRNO stock obviously made me a less than objective source. The discounted "shares" that the SEC has alledged I received are not shares at all, but 1/30th interest in a Limited Partnership that owns the Charleston waste oil process, currently mothballed, to which many of my fellow GRNO shareholders also entered. I have since reverted that partnership interest to 1/2 an LP or 1/60th the total interest in that LP entity. I am currently out $30,000 on a $25,000 asset for which I have received no income since its purchase. And Al-len.. there are several GOE LP partners who post on SI. It was never hidden from anyone. I and my wife are also at a substantial $$$ loss from our open market purchases of GRNO stock obtained both before and AFTER the stock reached its high of $10 when we both were feeling more comfortable about the company's progress and money had become available. At no time through 1997 had we sold a single share of our 5 figure position in GRNO stock. Of the 5-6 times that I have traveled to Charleston, SC for the purpose of due diligence visits, only in the initial visit was a plane ticket (same day round-trip) purchased for me. There are two hotel bills that were paid for subsequent visits according to GRNO records. The facts are in the public record. The interpretation of those facts are what is in question and I cannot comment on that interpretation. But believe me... I have certainly taken on a new perspective for SEC regulations. I just felt that I should amplify on those facts that were omitted form the Bloomberg article. And Al-len... I will not hide from this... I know what I did and didn't do and what my reasons were for my actions. However, I will not be chased off of SI just because you folks are afraid of what I have to say. I have the right to my opinion just as every other user of this forum. And since what I have to say reference AZNT and other stocks have nothing to do with GRNO, the fact that you constantly bring the GRNO issue up is the act of a coward who attempts to quash dissent through innuendo and slander. (remember I'm being accused of saying "positive statements" about GRNO.. ie: hyping, just like many other people do each and every day out here on this forum. The SEC is just alledging that I received some form of consideration for those statements.) We can discuss GRNO or my presence on this thread if you want. But the more attention you pay to me, the more honored I feel that you must go to such means to shut me up. It ain't going to work Al-len. However, with AZNT I'm bringing up pertinent points about this company. I'm discussing similiarities to companies that have had recent trouble with the FDA. I'm discussing the potential for having preferred stock immediately converted back into common and dumped on the market. I'm asking why this company feels it can be successful marketing Touch of Nature, if it can't even market chewing gum that has been "tried and tested" in Brazilian markets for two years. Al-len.. I've learned some very hard lessons over the past several years. When I see Yeas offering both Pro and Con scenarios to other readers of this thread, then I'll know that people are truly interested in doing full diligence... Why?? So they don't endure what GRNO, RMIL, GIFS, SEXI, IDID, and so many other shareholders have endured; An SEC trading halt. If the company is credible then it should stand up to all scrutiny or be able to admit that mistakes have been made and steps taken to rectify it. Unfortunately, AZNT yeas are unwilling to dig and present anything but the most glowing reports on this company. Take care, Al-len... the psyops crap doesn't play with me and you know it. Regards, Ron