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: Brady B. who wrote (16442)	11/30/1998 7:49:00 AM
From: Brady B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

To all who have sent e-mails and PM's offering their condolences and exclaiming embarrassment for last night, Thank You. It makes me feel better. More than a couple of you wanted me to re-post what started this whole thing with Mr. Weddle. Though it will only make you wonder "why", here it is. ____________begin post____________ I hope Hayton is vested so heavily in ESVS that he goes down with it. The ex-simmers are probably what got the stock kicked off nasdaq. By filing the lawsuit they put zulu in a position that it could not be used to show assets. A (allegated) fraud riddled company has no place on a listed exchange. Until it is disproven they should not be allowed to even touch the nasdaq board. kudo's to the ex-simmers. bb Yes I hold zulu stock. I also hold a lot of other things that make me want to wash my hands afterward. Guess. bb ___________end of post____________ Here are the references to Wired if you care to venture further. wired.com wired.com This was posted on Yahoo by RDBMW. It plainly states that litagation is pending and if you can get a peek at Exhibit 2.10 I would appreciate your sharing it. ________begin post_______________ 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 it would be best to check out this exhibit to see about any lawsuits. ______________end post____________ If there were no suits or litigation they would have left this part out: Except as set forth on Exhibit 2.10, as of the date of this Agreement, bb

To: Brady B. who wrote (16442)	11/30/1998 1:42:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 18444

Brady, your explanation did good at blaming me, yet you seem to want the luxury to have your questionable post have two meanings. On one hand you say you have the liberty to use "ex-simmers" because I do. Well, I've sure spoken about them a lot, but in the context of a THREAT of a lawsuit against Zulu, not one that has entered the courts. I've also spoken about how they've been distracting to the companies intentions--this information presented to me by none other than Pat Hayton. On the other hand, you're perfectly willing to substitute Bob Colvin's employment contractual dispute as a means of justifying your post.. Why? Because Aleta and Jon, for you, have said this is what you meant. It's not what you meant and you know it. You can't be two-faced about this. Either you were wrong or you have two explanations which are opposite for one act. Which is it? I'm sorry to those upset about wasting time on this issue. But I'm not going to let distortive remarks stand. I suggest you go back and re-read your post and then re-read your explanation to which I'm resopnding to. They don't match up. Sorry.