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 : JAWS;A P/E of 2 with 150%/yr Erngs Growth!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: william Velmer who wrote (2966)	9/29/1998 3:55:00 PM
From: sammaster	Respond to of 4230

hi mr. velmer.. if the SEC only asked u one question and thats all they said.... then how did u get the info about the possible selling of illegal shares and such? did u make that up? or did the SEC tell u what they were investigating? from what i have heard the SEC would not have told u what they were investigating like u claim on that e-mail u sent out... samir

To: william Velmer who wrote (2966)	9/29/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: JOHN B FAIRBANKS 1V C.P.A	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4230

I assume that you are not a brain surgeon either or else you would not be running an investment letter. You stated that the SEC could burn holes in you with a cigarette before they could get information from you. they really must have been asking you allot of hard questions that would have required torture.

To: william Velmer who wrote (2966)	9/29/1998 4:27:00 PM
From: PistolPete	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4230

Mr. Velmer... So, are we to believe that the Securities and Exchange Commission has such special faith in you that they divulge in detail the nature of inquiries or investigations, even though they adamantly state to anyone who calls that they NEVER do so? ...NEVER! And you expect us to believe that they went so far as to tell you that they are investigating the illegal sale of securities (I quote you, sir) by Great White Marine? Are you one of those people who believes your own lies? Mr. Velmer, methinks you doth protest too loudly. Methinks, furthermore that you are in what we used to call "deep Kimchee" as a result of your libelous pronouncements and obviously false characterization of the recent actions of the SEC and, lastly, methinks you might want to think twice before suggesting that you have the intelligence, or even the common sense, to tell if someone is or is not a "brain surgeon".

To: william Velmer who wrote (2966)	9/29/1998 4:41:00 PM
From: Jerry S.	Respond to of 4230

Velmer! Why are you posting all over the place about the fact that you didn't get paid for your JAWS recommendation? Is anyone disputing this? What I am interested in is your comment "In addition, the the Company itself is being investigated for possible illegal sale of shares according to SEC rules and regulations." You have been suspiciously quiet about any follow-ups to that statement. Why are you trying to deflect attention away from your potentially libelous statements that you sent in your "Special" sell recommendation? My final question: Did you buy JAWS/TGSK before you recommended it (a 'screaming buy' I believe is what you said) and did you sell it before your sell recommendation? My final final question: Have you been enjoying your conversations (strategy sessions?) with your best friend "Bob"?

To: william Velmer who wrote (2966)	9/29/1998 5:04:00 PM
From: JOHN B FAIRBANKS 1V C.P.A	Respond to of 4230

I bet that this little fiasco has increased the number of subscribers to your newsletter. I know I am thinking about signing up. NOT !!!!!

To: william Velmer who wrote (2966)	9/29/1998 5:29:00 PM
From: del clark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4230

Mr Velmer, No, I am no brain surgeon and I only have a 120 IQ but I know a pump and dump newsletter when I see one. I don't give a damn that you don't like JAWS. But when you make a claim that you don't want to trash the stock and then proceed with making up stories about the company I have to have doubts about your motives.

To: william Velmer who wrote (2966)	9/29/1998 5:50:00 PM
From: Mark B. Martell, CCM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4230

Mr. Velmer, Thanks for taking some of your precious time in discussing these matters with our board. I would like to pose a few questions to you sir. I would like to have a better understanding about how your newsletter is beneficial to me, a potential subscriber. When you were contacted by the SEC in this case of investigating internet newsletter schemes, did you feel it incumbent upon yourself to disclose the SEC's investigation in your "Sell" recommendation to your newsletter subscribers? Wouldn't it have been, from a legal point of you, more appropriate to simply recommend that your subscribers sell any remaining position in JAWS without giving out that detail? You could have simply pointed to the lack of SEC filing as the reason for your recommendation. Surely you are not a stupid man. I would surmise that a man subject to the personal/business risks of a company such as yours has a law firm on retainer that reviews your newsletter in advance of publication. Is this what your attorney(s) felt was an appropriate response? I ask this because, as a prospective subscriber to your service, I want to understand the integrity of the man behind the material. Another question for you sir: It has been purported by a Mr. R.J. Monski that you and he have spoken directly regarding this matter. Could you relay to us the nature of these discussions and your impressions of this gentleman? That would go a long way to helping me, a potential subscriber, understand your willingness to have private conversations with subscibers and non-subscribers alike. Mr. Monski has had some choice words about SA Advisory and other internet newsletters (which have been accused of arousing interest in a stock after taking a position in it "pump", while selling the stock before recommending it be sold "dump"). Apparently Mr. Monski believes that you and he share a special inside knowledge of Great White Marine as a result of this investigation. As I'm sure you are aware, the company has been quoted as stating that they have been investigating Mr. Monski himself and provided this work product to the SEC. I just want to understand, as a potential subscriber, your willingness to hold professional discussions with questionable individuals. Finally, I would like to know the answer to one question: What is your impression of a possible large short position on this stock? If you were to recommend selling this stock, as you have, then you must believe that the short position is non-existent and that the company has been fraudulently flooding the market with shares. In fact, your sell recommendation states that the SEC informed you directly that this was the reason for investigating JAWS. Was this really meant to be your opinion about the cause for the investigation as opposed to an official SEC comment regarding the investigation? As a potential subscriber to your newsletter, I would like to make sure I can distinguish between your opinions and stated fact. Again, thanks for your time. Mark