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 (2986)	9/30/1998 1:16:00 AM
From: PistolPete	Respond to of 4230

Mr. Velmer: 1) Was the subject line of the letter worded EXACTLY that way? And, by the way, you seem to make one hell of a mountain out of nothing more than a subject line. 2) I did call the SEC about this and they don't discuss these things with anybody. I doubt they chat with you about it much, either. 3) You would be "witholding inside information"??? Bill, I think you have this one a bit backwards; you are not supposed to spread it and you are certainly not supposed to trade on it. 4) You came out with your little blurb a matter of one day before the Company did. Big deal. Don't even try to suggest that they acted in response to your newsletter. 5) Again: You said (in your 9/23 announcement)"In addition, the the (sic) Company itself is being investigated for possible illegal sale of shares according to SEC rules and regulations." Are you ready to talk about that last one yet, Bill? Are you saying the SEC divulged to you personally the nature and content of their (you claim) "investigation" in another company? Who did? You know, if nobody at the SEC actually said this to you, Bill, I hope you are ready to spend some time explaining yourself. Sorry if this doesn't seem "civil" by the way, but your actions have cost me quite a bit of money in the last week or so, and I don't take that well.

To: william Velmer who wrote (2986)	9/30/1998 1:20:00 AM
From: Jerry S.	Respond to of 4230

I will be civil ...... please elaborate on your accusation of Jaws illegally issuing shares. Your earlier explanation cannot possibly be a credible one. You mean to tell me that you are now hiding behind some generalized idea of what the SEC could be looking into in investigations? Velmer, that is certainly not the feeling I got when I received your e-mail. The "sell while under investigation" reasoning could be deemed somewhat plausible, but your strong insinuation that you suspected, or even knew of, illegal issuance of shares smacks of intended manipulation. IMO, you not only wanted to see the stock go down, you kicked it on the way with your unsubstantiated statements. That's how I read it, and I would suspect Jaws will not take kindly to this either. Do you plead the 5th on this or what?

To: william Velmer who wrote (2986)	9/30/1998 10:07:00 AM
From: flightlessbird	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4230

Mr. Velmer, please kindly take a moment to respond . . . You state: "Within the letter from the SEC. It states: Re:In the Matter of Great White Marine and Recreation & In the Matter of Certain Internet Newsletters. It obviously talks about two different subjects: 1. newsletters 2. JAWS It should be understood that during numerous conversations with the SEC in is easy to conclude that the investigation deals with many facets of JAWS. If you can call the SEC they should readily be able to expand on what the SEC looks for when companies are under investigation." Now can you (perhaps you should consult with legal counsel before responding this time) please tell me PRECISELY where we are to make the leap that YOU made in your email regarding the SEC investigating the illegal sale of shares by JAWS. Was it the fact that JAWS was simply in the name on the subpoena? Or maybe it was your loose interpretation of "many facets of JAWS"? I'm just not sure. In fact, I don't think you're sure either since you have now ducked this question many times. Can you just admit that you erred in this statement or will you continue to make yourself look even more like an arrogant ass? It looks like a prima facie case of libel to me. Perhaps your defense will be to get an affidavit from the SEC explaining that they did in fact tell you that was part of the investigation. LOLOLOLOLOLOL I'm sure the SEC will be most cooperative on that one. NOT Just FYI, the SEC does NOT discuss the nature of their investigation and I would highly recommend you seek some very good legal counsel for having placed such words in their mouth. Good luck. you are going to need it. badly.

To: william Velmer who wrote (2986)	9/30/1998 12:42:00 PM
From: Mark B. Martell, CCM	Respond to of 4230

Mr. Velmer, My comments to you will always remain civil. I, unlike PistolPete, understand the company to have responded to your e-mail to your subscribers without disclosing this SEC investigation to their shareholders first. Since the SEC investigation was informal in scope, I would have preferred Great White to remain silent on the issue until the investigation became formal, if at all. I work for a large pharmaceutical concern in PA. Our Boston company was under review for EEOC violations. Only when the EEOC charges were formal did we disclose. That is the nature of doing business sir. Even the SEC tells you that they do not require the company to disclose informal investigations. Again, as a prospective subscriber to your service, you must be cognizant of the dissemination of knowledge in the internet chat rooms or you do a disservice to your clients. Hence your ignorance of Mr. Monski and the nature/agenda of his posts. Mr. Monski contacted me at home late last night (12:30AM EST) as a result of my open conversations with you here. His lack of personal discretion in initiating this call and the nature of his alleged past crime may be seen as a cause of concern. I have never addressed Mr. Monski directly before, and he seemed to be concerned that I was painting him in an unfavorable light. Mr. Monski will most likely contact me again. He may be sincere in his beliefs, but the nature of some of his posts on the Yahoo discussion thread (whether or not they were initiated by him or just responses to others) can be crude and distasteful. Another concern of mine, as a potential subscriber to your service, is that you feign knowledge of any short position in Great White. If you were performing the due diligence necessary to recommend positions in this stock, you do a disservice to your clientele by not acknowledging the notion of a large short position (whether it existed or not). When you had recommended selling 50% of the position in JAWS, you should have told your membership that you did so despite the possible short position which you (the subscriber) might be reading about. Finally, as a potential subscriber to your service, I am curious as to whether or not your firm is more than one individual. You refer to I and we in your responses, and I need to know whether or not I or we is singular or plural. An obvious concern of mine would be to invest in a stock that you singularly have recommended, having some catastrophic event happen to your person of which I am unaware, only to hold the stock through a collapse due to the absence of a sell recommendation provided by yourself due to personal incapacity. I could not in good conscience subscribe to your service otherwise. Again, thank you for your time. Mark

To: william Velmer who wrote (2986)	9/30/1998 12:57:00 PM
From: PistolPete	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4230

My Dear Mr. Velmer, I have been anxiously awaiting the rationale for your claim, or perhaps you feel it was a disclosure, that Great White is being investigated for the illegal sale of securities. I fully expect you ignore this message, as you have the the others I have posted, perhaps due to their regrettable indelicacy. Absent some kind of explanation to those here and on other internet message threads, you certainly must understand that the majority of those following this story will assume that your allegations were fabricated and quite libelous; furthermore, they have caused substantial monetary damages to me and others invested in this stock and that, Mr. Velmer, will be the subject of my next several telephone calls: monetary damages. I would appreciate your answer now if you could take a minute to respond and no, I am not a potential subscriber.