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 : DGIV-A-HOLICS...FAMILY CHIT CHAT ONLY!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paulmcg0 who wrote (31109)	11/12/1998 2:26:00 PM
From: MoneyBaggs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50264

exchange2000.com

To: paulmcg0 who wrote (31109)	11/12/1998 4:41:00 PM
From: Howard C.	Respond to of 50264

Some companies are silent, some are not: HACKENSACK, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 11, 1998-- Agreement with Capcom enables expanded IP-based phone services throughout Spain and Italy IDT's (NASDAQ:IDTC) Net2Phone today announced that it has signed a multi-year contract with Capcom S.A., based in Madrid, Spain, to offer phone-to-phone Internet telephony services in Europe. Under the agreement, Capcom, an emerging telecommunications provider in Spain, has purchased Net2Phone Direct gateways, and will resell Net2Phone Direct services such as pre-paid phone cards and corporate voice and fax services to its customers. Capcom currently offers long-distance calling to businesses and consumers through postpaid and calling card services. Capcom has planned an aggressive rollout for Net2Phone Direct in Spain, Italy and other markets in southern Europe.

To: paulmcg0 who wrote (31109)	11/12/1998 8:03:00 PM
From: ~digs	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 50264

"Here's another scenario to consider, concerning DGIV's silence: Various penny stock promoters, including DGIV's former promoter Liberty Capital, have been charged with offenses by the SEC. Perhaps, DGIV realized that it was smarter to lay low, and let the promoters take the heat from the SEC. (This is similar to the CIA's concept of "plausible deniability".) Fair enough. Digitcom did fire Liberty Capital early last summer, that bodes well in my book. Paul, remember a few months back when you tried to twist around that other promoter suit. You gave the url, (a huge link of some legal document) and so I looked into it... came to the conclusion that it wasn't relevant for numerous reasons. Now, that sec bust you speak of, is that relevant to digitcom? I mean your credibility was bad before, am I to believe it's improved? Why don't you post the Sec news concerning Liberty Capital? Let's take a look at how it might be relevant. My understanding is that liberty's infraction along with the other's wrongdoings, was for failing to notify potential investors of the compensation Company X was giving to Promoter Y for talking up their stock. For instance, promoter websites which failed to admit such compensation, individual posters on threads, email newsletters, etc. Most of the companies that were busted were pr firms right? Not their clients, their employees so to speak. This is just my take anyways. Know what's really ironic Paul? This same concept pretty much works for demoting websites such as Stock Detective as well. Individual posters such as yourself are compensated by a PR firm to "bash" a stock (We all know that pr firms short the stock of some of their clients). You'ld think that this is equally illegal, because the demoters are not admitting to their compensation either. Of course all of this is actually legit if your not receiving compensation from an outside source, meaning, if you buy and sell the stock in question through the open market, and subsequently hype or bash a stock, there's really not much the sec can do about it. So, here's what it comes down to, if DGIV paid an individual with securities (or cash I guess) to hype this stock, and that individual did not report their compensation within their disclaimer (if they even have one), then that individual is at fault (unless DGIV used coersion to keep said promoter from revealing such info). Part of the role of a pr firm is to increase awareness and essentially promote the stock of a company. The business being promoted pays the pr firm for the service. If while being proactive, the pr firm (or its constituits) do not indicate that they are being paid to promote said stock, then the pr firm is responsible... not the company whose stock was being promoted. Anyways, this all my understanding of the recent bust. Bring the article on over here Paul, let's take a look at it... doesn't seem relevant to me. BTW, as a special treat, I left some spelling errors above for you. I've been told that MENSA members can spot a spelling mistake with practically zero effort. I'm hopin' you can find them. As an added inspiration, I've decided to give you one credibility point for each word you locate that is not found it the good ol' dictionary. Good luck!!