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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dean Dumont who wrote (10277)	11/1/1998 12:12:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Why, hello again, Mr Tit! I'm afraid you've made one seriously incorrect assumption, which alas has led you to make libelous statements: As a matter of fact several other companies who have has the " Bashers" spreading rumors and making attempts to support those who pay them to bash a stock while they are shorting it, are going to have there shareholders looking into a type of class action that could be interesting. "The Bashers", as you call us, are not a monolithic group. I can speak only for myself and for those who've been contributing to this thread. We're not being paid for what we do, nor are we short the stock. If someone from AZNT has represented to you--as FACT--that we are, then you're being lied to. And you seem to be foolish enough to believe it. Bill Ulrich, ever heard of copywrite infringement, you'd better look it up and get a lawyer, that website, although funny, is a very serious problem for you. Not really. Parody and satire enjoy First Amendment protection. Since I am not the " PROMOTER " of the stock and do not work for AZNT I can come here and tell say that the 50% of the facts that getting posted here are that, about HALF THE TRUTH. No one really has all the facts and that has been admitted to me from both sides. Well, if you know the Whole Truth--which I very much doubt is the case--why don't you simply post it here, with documentation? That should settle a number of issues, right? And from my understanding, they are attempting every little dirty trick in the books to help Charlie, Rick, John, and Dempsey cover up on their admitted short position in AZNT. John? Who's John?

To: Dean Dumont who wrote (10277)	11/1/1998 12:26:00 PM
From: Arcane Lore	Respond to of 26163

... When 1/2 of the " Documents" are produced here, and all throu Bill Ulrichs company in San Fran., like the website that he generated, and the FBI and the S.E.C now have, maybe then someone will realize that the crap that goes on here is just that. ... At what web site can one find the other 1/2 of the documents? TIA

To: Dean Dumont who wrote (10277)	11/1/1998 1:34:00 PM
From: Spider Valdez	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

bgtit you bring up many good points another is sec gets many complaints from many guys at same time about same stocks. this is pattern. also do you know same names may be on monsanto list of guys who say they get sick from ton but never tasted it! yes poor reporter now knows not to cross penny stock bashers ! lololol! now he enjoys same harassing that they wanted him to contribute with article! live & learn i say. do you know name of andy mann publically traded co.? it has 52 week spread from $2 to $150!!!! oh man what can we make of this?? andy mann is wanted by more than law i see!! spider

To: Dean Dumont who wrote (10277)	11/1/1998 2:08:00 PM
From: Blue On Black	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Bgtit, What I find additionally funny is the reporter in Las Vegas...(yadda,yadda,yadda,yowsa,yowsa)...was moved to the bottom of the SHT LIST when his editor was talked to.* This may be real far out but maybe the editor decided to move the reporter to a more appropriate place until he could learn to check sources. Editors often do that to minimize exposure to liability from reporters that forget to verify,verify, and verify some more. After all, some scum-sucking pigs will pass off any type of boom boom not nice info as fact if they think it won't be checked. 'Seams' to me that spidey has infected you with his use of 'to' rather than 'too'. Why am I not surprised? lee PS:What was your relationship with aznt? Were you not getting paid for something? #reply-5663279 .

To: Dean Dumont who wrote (10277)	11/1/1998 2:46:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

bgtwit, I'm not sure which page you meant. Was it this one: magneticdiary.com ?? “…ever heard of copywrite infringement, you'd better look it up…” Clearly you have vast knowledge of it, but let me help you out just a little: it's 'copyright'—look it up some time, if merely for the thrill and experience. “…and get a lawyer, that website, although funny, is a very serious problem for you.…” Thanks, I'll ask mine who he recommends.

To: Dean Dumont who wrote (10277)	11/1/1998 9:21:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 26163

Especially Monsanto, when calling them and telling them that the T.O.N product makes you sick Perhaps AZNT slipped up and sent out some TON that actually conformed to the molecular diagrams posted on the AZNT site. Lucky the poor bastard didn't have a cigarette with his coffee, or he'd have had to call from orbit. Can't imagine why he'd call Monsanto, though. Maybe JMO would like the job of calling Monsanto and trying to track down anybody who had ever heard of TON or AZNT. I certainly wouldn't. I can come here and say that the 50% of the facts that are getting posted here are that, about HALF THE TRUTH. I have yet to see a verifiable fact of any description posted on this thread. Even the fairly obvious assumption that AZNT has not achieved any of its projected figures for this year is not verifiable, as nobody seems to know what, if anything, they have sold or earned. In other words, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Do you? Taking away a companies oppertunity to do business and or generate revenue out of these types of companies is only going to bring the wrath of the shareholders down on the parties that sabotaged this. Are you attributing the Company's failure to achieve its revenue and earnings targets to the actions of bashers? Some news for you - if this company had actually achieved its stated earnings targets for this year, if it could produce a handful of credible independent witnesses to attest to the efficacy and quality of its products, if it could produce documentation of its arrangements with the Brazilian Government, if it had regular and credible SEC filings, it could be bashed by everybody on SI and the stock would still fly. The person bashing this stock is the one shooting off his mouth and projecting revenues miles beyond what the company could possibly hope to achieve, assuming - a considerable stretch - that it is a legitimate business. The wrath of the shareholders is going to fall exactly where it belongs - on the company management. They won't like the bashers - nobody appreciates having a major blunder pointed out to them - but the stock's inevitable fall will be because of the company's performance or lack thereof, not because of the "bashers" who pointed this out. This is pretty close to being a self-bashing stock. Unless, of course, the people holding the stock knew all along what it is, and bought it not as an investment, but in hope of conning other people into buying in, then "generating revenue" by dumping before the newcomers figured out what they'd bought. Those people would be seriously upset with the bashers, but I don't imagine they'll find many sources of sympathy. I can't imagine why I would suspect that, though. Must be paranoia. Lololololol. Steve