SI
SI
discoversearch

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: antibash who wrote (11144)11/10/1998 12:58:00 AM
From: Spider Valdez  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 26163
 
yes marco is sheep like all fbna penny stock bashers. you are smart guy. which brokers turn state evidence about dtc? was meyerson mm for marcasse naked shorts today? lololol
spider



To: antibash who wrote (11144)11/10/1998 1:25:00 AM
From: marcos  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 26163
 
I don't so much "rely on the basher information", it's more of a judging on an overall balance of arguments presented by all. I came to this thread two or three months ago with an open mind, quite unprejudiced, without any opinion of aznt's future success or failure.

It was obvious right off that aznt was yet another non-reporting Nevada OTC-BB stock undergoing heavy internet promotion, and that a number of posters associated with the ovis/rmil promotion were involved. And from there my opinion of the paper went downhill, based on the weight of evidence and history of credibility of individual posters, with the pumpsters pretty much doing themselves in with their own absurdities. No, don't blame the 'bashers'.

You know, auntie, the childish little ad hominem attacks like those in this post to which I am referring do nothing to cover up the fact that all the lies that have been debunked to date on this thread have come from the 'long' side.

But don't let me inhibit you - go ahead, make something else up.

Tell me there's not a humongous pile of this aznt paper out there.



To: antibash who wrote (11144)11/10/1998 9:15:00 AM
From: Janice Shell  Respond to of 26163
 
You for one, have ignored the criminal acts which have concluded to the INEVITABLE short squeeze.

I naturally agree that criminal acts have been committed. I do not doubt, in fact, that I know a good deal more about that than you do. The place to sort this out is criminal, not civil, court; and none of it should be used to provoke a short squeeze that would chiefly profit company insiders.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News