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 : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ROSARIO who wrote (16022)	10/20/1998 12:21:00 PM
From: John PD	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 43774

The point,bonehead, is they didn't do a reverse split.So they screwed up and got delisted. Give us a real example.Can't can you,jelly boy. I think it would be fine if the SEC would look into PRWT to shut idiots like you up. You can read about it while being pumped.Isn't that ironic? JohnPD

To: ROSARIO who wrote (16022)	10/20/1998 12:32:00 PM
From: LegalBeast	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

Just who is this Security Exchange Commission you keep referring to? For someone who is supposed to be smart and savvy, one would think that you could at least get the name right ... or is there something you are hiding? Don't say it verbally? You idiot, writing IS verbal just as spoken is verbal. Isn't the word you want "oral"??????? As to the reverse split issue, What evidence is there anywhere in the market that says anyone has to state all of the things that they are NOT going to do? You seem to be stating that since the company will not put in writing things they are NOT going to do, then they are hiding something. Is there a legal basis for that? Is there a realistic basis for that? Is there any requirement at all for that? Personally, I would rather the company tend to the business of what they ARE going to do than to respond to your desires. You really want to know why they won't put in writing that they will not do something? Because it would be an ultra-vires act utilizing company funds in a manner inconsistent with the fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Now I know that two things are true at this point: 1) You have no counter argument to mine because there is not one, and 2) You will ignore this fact and continue to whine your redundant ignorant question, but this much is true: Your question has been answered! With that, I ask that all shareholders of this company simply cease to respond to this person on this issue, and heaven help the shareholder who explains the real name of the SEC ... (GRRRRRRRRR...)