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 (16680)	12/5/1998 3:37:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 18444

Actually, Brady, ESVS has reported and filed extensively over the years. Mr. Duckman, principal of ESVS, still has millions at stake, do you agree? So are you telling me that Mr. Duckman all of a sudden decided to join a Pat Hayton renegade unit in order to pull high jinx in the stock market? My personal opinion is you've taken some hard luck obstacles which Zulu has faced and combined them with a deep-seated prejudice which you've learned from others who post on these threads. This combination, it seems, has spoiled your view. There is so much more neither you nor I know about. The test of proof, the test of reason, should be when something is purported by ZULU/ESVS: Is it so and what does it mean; not it's not true, prove to me it is. But the prejudicial standard which has come to permeate on these threads has indeed changed such a standard. Again, I'll state there's been too much legal work already completed on this deal, and for good reason. That a flaw created the delisting, should not send everyone into the belief that the delisting was intentional. I posed, from an intellectual point of questioning: Was the delisting intentional (for that question needed consideration). But I did not pose this question, as Jon Tara has, with an advocacy in mind that this was in fact what happened. Already, whether you realize it or not, you're acting as if JT is right, that it was intentional. Fact is, JT don't know beans about this deal, his research is minimal at best. I asked this question objectively; he asked it with negative speculation in mind--there's a difference. My view is the Nasdaq deficiency will be cured and another big fat legal document will be submitted in order to do so. Meanwhile, the show goes on with rumored new announcements about to come out of the mill. Why not set back and see what the end of the year looks like. I mean, after all, you've waited this long haven't you? I urge patience on the part of all involved.

To: Brady B. who wrote (16680)	12/5/1998 7:58:00 PM
From: kemosabe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18444

Brady, You are exactly right about saying "no" if doubts exist. I have written multi-million dollar service contracts in less than 30 days with reputable defense contractors that know how to cross their t's and dot their i's. But sometimes it takes me 90 days just to buy $1500 worth of equipment from small firms with little history. Some firms are simply not even considered because of their past. Check, recheck, and double-check and if something is not right, start over. Same deal with Zulu/Esvs and the delisting. They got their hands slapped and now the SEC will scrutinize further because of the poor performance history that they are beginning to exhibit. Check, recheck, and double check again. From the looks of it, this one's going nowhere fast. kemosabe