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: Hogger who wrote (12557)	11/20/1998 2:58:00 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 26163

Your wrong on both counts of course. 1. The 'disappearing' Wellrich document was a petition written by their legal counsel, not an official court order. It has always been presented as such—a "petition to compel". It is within the right of Wellrich's counsel to pull the petition from publication—it's their doc, and not a public one. Belongs to the lawyers, not the courts. Its 'disappearance' is irrelevant to this inevitable short squeeze. 2. The phone calls exist only in your head thus far. There's never been any proof—only assertions from your side—very much like the fabricated purchase order from Sweet Factory (courtesy your team), and the fabricated 'Order to Return Stock' (courtesy your team). Suggest you folks not be so transparent with your lies&#151they might actually last longer than a day. You got something solid, aside from the pumpkin pie? Speaking of 'pump kin', Spidey's relationship with Mikey could be pretty interesting.

To: Hogger who wrote (12557)	11/20/1998 3:14:00 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

That phone call story sounds to me a lot like the busted window story - made from whole cloth as an appeal for sympathy or something. Pathetic. Why not apply such management energy and competence as exists to the building of a business? ... I mean, a business other than just flogging share paper.

To: Hogger who wrote (12557)	11/20/1998 10:54:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

and don't forget that they have also deluged people with telephone calls that contained not one tiny bit of truth. Sorry, but "we", the people who post on this thread, did no such thing. In fact, speaking for myself I have only Spidey's word for it that any such calls were ever made. More than one of us has explained why it would be pointless to make calls of the nature described in any case. Sorry, but Spidey's proved over and over again that he's prepared to lie about anything at all. I believe nothing he says unless I have independent corroboration. And oddly enough, I've never found it. Here's a good example: remember all the screaming and yelling about the injunction as we posted it? All those attacks on us? The insistence that we'd either "edited" or "fabricated" it? Well, sorry. Now we have the transcript of the hearing, which makes it abundantly clear that the injunction as we presented it was precisely what was signed by Judge George on October 2. Doesn't it bother you even slightly that your buddies--and perhaps the company as well--were LYING about this?