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 : Zulu-tek, Inc. (ZULU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aleta who wrote (16399)	11/29/1998 7:20:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 18444

No, I want folks to be accurate and not present misimpressions. Had Brady been more theoretical in what he presented, this wouldn't have become what it did. But, no, he was emphatic. And I corrected him. No, he didn't mistakenly use "ex-simmers" instead of "ex-simmer." The "ex-simmer" actually also sued the "ex-simmers" in the same lawsuit against Zulu-tek. Do you think Bob Colvin inflated his allegations in order to maximize his damages? Yes, quite likely. It's always done. And I'd venture to bet the 200 THOUSAND dollars is inflated damages, not the actual amount of the actual termination contract dispute. Did Brady read Colvin's court filing? I bet not. Is there a $200 MILLION dollar lawsuit out there by "ex-simmers" against Softbank Holdling? Yes, there is. But why should we confuse this and make investors think that it is this lawsuit which is upon Zulu? Were you still a Zulu investor, Aleta, you wouldn't like such a mischaracterization, I assure you. Here's one for ya! The value of ZuluMedia, according to the "ex-simmers'" lawsuit is 200 MILLION dollars? There it is, yet a best case example of inflated damages. So please try to understand this Colvin lawsuit a bit better before flagging "fraud" all over Zulu on a mere and simple employee/employer dispute. Yes, you, Jon and Brady, it appears, are all too willing to do this. So be realistic: Should an employee/employer dispute sustain the gravity of allegations of fraud to which Brady was attempting to put on Zulu? Of course not! Be sensible. All I have done today is my damndest in order to correct what would have become fraudlent impressions left by his remarks.

To: aleta who wrote (16399)	11/29/1998 9:46:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

Brady, Aleta and Jon--please read very, very carefully! BMW just recently posted this on ESVS/Yahoo. It confirms what I have been saying all along: >>>Taken from Esvs 8k. 3.17 Litigation. Except as set forth on Exhibit 2.10, as of the date of this Agreement, there is no litigation or proceedings pending or, to the best of the knowledge of ZULU-tek's stockholders and ZULU-tek's directors and officers, threatened against ZULU-tek or any of its assets or properties. To the extent that after the date hereof ZULU-tek shall become aware that such claims or litigation shall be initiated or threatened with respect to this transaction or any actions of ZULU-tek, it shall promptly advise ENHANCED thereof.<<< I guess an employee/employee contract termination dispute does not qualify as a deemable instance of "fraud" in so far as the SEC is concerned. But Mr. Colvin's contract dispute with Zulu certainly has served the purposes of Zulu revisionists and distortionists quite well, wouldn't all agree? And, furthermore, is Mr. Colvin's action still active? Was there a settlement? Did he drop his action? And, Brady, were you really, really, really talking about Mr. Colvin when you made your remark? Mr. Colvin is a usage quite singular, whereas "ex-simmers" is a usage quite plural, plus you further qualified this plurality by including the term "they." I rest my case.