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 : Zulu-tek, Inc. (ZULU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Terry T. who wrote (13485)	9/3/1998 11:45:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 18444

Yeah, Terry, it shows that ESVS has been running Zulu since they consolidated headquarters. I agree. It would have been nice if we had seen a press release relative to the operation agreement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't someone post something from an ESVS SEC filing that described that ESVS would be operating Zulu? I may be wrong; but I may be right. I thought I remembered seeing that posted. I mean is this nothing but a situation where Joey Homeowner looks out in the his yard on Monday morning and thinks to himself: "Well, I know the leaves gotta be raked up and environmentally disposed of, and I know that I'm perfectly capable of doing this. But why should I? I've got a guy coming in on Saturday to do it." If this filing clearly states the ESVS role, if it's a "done deal" as has been expressed by many, why reorder something that's going to disappear anyhow?

To: Terry T. who wrote (13485)	9/3/1998 11:56:00 PM
From: aleta	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

To All, Have a safe and happy Labor Day weekend. Terry, Thanks again for all of your hard work and for being fair. I apologize publicly for having doubted your motives and integrity when you first began to question the Hayton interview. It took me awhile, but I understand why you were so upset and I'm sorry for having played a part in that mess. Don't work too hard and enjoy a nice long weekend. You deserve it. See ya' all later, Aleta

To: Terry T. who wrote (13485)	9/4/1998 12:11:00 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

Terry, my post #12682 isn't exactly rosey, is it? There have been others, but I'm not searching for 'em just to prove that I've had unrosey moments. Really, why do that? Whose at the helm at this point is rather moot, given what's happened. Isn't it apparent that Zulu-tek and ESVS, in effect, have already become ZuluGroup.com? Given the SEC will likely sanction what the shareholders approve--and the vote's already in the bag--all that's required is the formality of the labelling, i.e. new ticker symbol and name change. On the surface, I think 10 to one seems unfair to me. I don't like it. Never did. Probably never will. But still I cannnot at this time outright label it unfair overall. This is because of two reasons: 1) I haven't seen the Zulu financial report. I'd prefer to see such a report. But it looks like the company wants the world to know that it really is starting out once it achieves the Nasdaq listing and that this whole OTC:BB business has been the equivalent of training wheels on a bicycle. Sure a report dating back to the inception of the company would be great. But maybe starting anew might be even better! Whether the company has a strategic reason for doing it this way, or a nefarious reason for doing it this way--I simply do not know. Against all the backdrop of negativity, however, I imagine it's quite easy to take the gloom and doom outlook. I won't do that. 2) Would, say, a five to one ratio, juxtrapositioned against the actual economic numbers of the combined entities, cause a negative effect and thus dilute the float and inhibit the new entity's prospect for rapidly increasing its share price position? I mean do we make the money on the front end or the back end, I guess, is the simplified question. So, on balance with the leading edge technology and the present market positions available to become leader in that technology, I'm willing to move forward with the Nasdaq listing and hope for a better shake in the future, a shake much better than the one we've had in the past. I guess, in the end, I agree with Sam Matz.