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: Craig K who wrote (26528)	9/22/1998 9:05:00 AM
From: Rick D.	Respond to of 50264

Craig, I don't think it's anything that sinister. I think what we've seen in the "correction" releases is the hand of the lawyers making sure that they do a suitable CYA job. I don't know Roger Templeton, since he hasn't returned my calls either, but I don't think he's right for the job he's in. I think it's possible to write press releases that both communicate well with shareholders and protect the company's interest. Apparently, Roger hasn't figured out how to do that, because it looks like in both of the "correction" releases, he has used the legal eagles' language without much thought to how it might be interpreted by shareholders. So, at least in two cases, the lawyers were in the drivers seat, and Roger took their advice. In both cases, I think it was a mistake. I think he should have taken their language and used it as a general disclaimer at the end of more enlightening messages that shed light on reasons behind the event in question. JMHO Rick

To: Craig K who wrote (26528)	9/22/1998 9:13:00 AM
From: MARK C.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50264

Craig I tend to agree with you, after failing to meet their hinted at deadline for filing the sb10 what did the company put out yesterday. In post # 26428 Hope informed us that she had talked to Daniel at WorldVision and he said "the sb10 had not been filed yet" In post #26493 Todd informed us that Cheryl said "that the SEC kicked back the sb10 because of a problem with DIV-N which was never part of DGIV" In post #26476 The company P.R States that council for DGIV has held up the sb10 pending further information. What are we supposed to ascertain from these mixed signals ? other than the fact that management and it's council appear to be very incompetent at being truthful with investors. Are they truly this incompetent ? I doubt it and certainly hope not because if they are I pray DGIV gets bought out in the near future since this group seems unqualified to manage an international operation. And if they are qualified why the smoke screen except to free up shares held by current investors. MarkC.