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.

Technology Stocks : Osicom(FIBR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis G. who wrote (8393)	10/4/1998 11:58:00 PM
From: David Wise	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10479

Dennis, you must have been reading the Yahoo or some other thread. I really haven't seen Gorman blamed for anything, here. At least not to the extent that you could say there was an attempt to make him a scapegoat. A few of us have said that we were not impressed with him and that his resume was not great, and I said I thought he was mostly a "yes" man who did whatever Par wanted. The only way I would put any blame on Gorman for the reverse split is that he probably didn't advise Par to the contrary, or was too weak to challenge Par with a good argument. When we voted on increasing the allowed number of shares I asked John why they didn't just add 10 million at a time, especially since people were already suspicious about stock dealings. He said he had suggested this, but was persuaded by others that if an attractive acquisition came along they'd be better off to already have the shares allowed. I said that if that happened they could explain the circumstances to shareholders and we could decide then if we wanted to increase some more. I've seen many companies state that an acquisition was subject to stockholder approval. His answer was that they didn't have to get shareholder approval, and he said it very defensively like he was suddenly irritated. I don't even know what he meant, but it was after the fact, so I dropped it. But I really haven't seen, as you suggest, that people are making him a scapegoat for anyone else. Did anyone here suggest he was to blame for the reverse split? Or the Convertible Preferreds? To suggest that he may have been paid to take any blame away from Par just doesn't fit if no one is blaming John in the first place. I guess, being the CFO, I would put more blame on him if I hadn't already been convinced that he was not there long enough to be forceful and was just there to do what he was told. I thought he did a good job handling the conference calls, and really performed as expected. I don't think there has even been a press release on this subject - it was just part of the SEC filing. I'm just guessing that he's no longer needed, as new, more experienced people can take his place. I don't think a reason has been given. No conspiracy here! David