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 : International Automated Systems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Posey who wrote (1445)	11/27/1998 5:08:00 AM
From: ML	Respond to of 7618

"Isn't it amazing, we go for weeks and weeks and nothing new is written on this thread." No. It is more amazing that after 10 years, this company has no products, and no hope of any products, and yet its stock sells for a price more than zero.

To: Jim Posey who wrote (1445)	11/27/1998 1:28:00 PM
From: bottomfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7618

The issue is that they were to produce a prototype in 96 and they did not and do not have one now. My cousin was involved with the store operation. He is holding on his company stock just in case they may produce the modem. I sincerely doubt they are spending millions on R&D. Perhaps it is time for me to visit their R&D area. My cousin states that fraud situation may be real. My dad owns some of this stock as such disagrees with my pessimism.

To: Jim Posey who wrote (1445)	11/29/1998 10:01:00 PM
From: paulmcg0	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7618

[[where do you think that the money is coming from to keep the company working?]] From loans from Neldon and "proceeds from issuance of common stock" as their financial reports put it. [[you will see that they have spent millions on R&D]] So, where's the beef? I mean a working DWM modem?? I don't believe they have anything that can go more than 56 Kbps over unmodified phone lines. But I'm sure that they will be forced in court (in the shareholders' lawsuit or the SEC case) to prove what they have (or don't have). They claim that they can violate the known laws of engineering and the operating constraints of real world systems like the telephone network. Have you ever heard of the scientific method? The scientific method requires that any claimed discovery that violates accepted science has to be subjected to rigorous scrutiny by outsiders. Maybe the discovery is real, maybe it isn't. But without outside scrutiny, it is merely a claim, nothing more. So, how come we've never even seen any results from the professor at Stanford, that IAS gave 35,000 dollars to as a grant to study DWM? And, let me ask the most obvious question, something that has bothered me for some time. Since you are such a vehement defender of IAS, what is your relation to IAS or to Neldon Johnson?