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 : DGIV-A-HOLICS...FAMILY CHIT CHAT ONLY!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus Long who wrote (33648)	12/10/1998 7:58:00 PM
From: dch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50264

You've just presented a third alternative: respond to naysayers with point-by-point, lucid, objective, accurate, intelligent, mature, and civil language. (Also known as fighting fire with water.) Excellent job, and so in character that I have no doubt you are the real Lazarus Long. (aka Lazzoro) --dch (overlooking his dangerous use of the SI-banned word "heinie")

To: Lazarus Long who wrote (33648)	12/10/1998 8:17:00 PM
From: Moosie	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 50264

Hi Laz, More crazy days in DGIVville. Sat down to 293 posts and waded through them all. Bullmarket was a man with a mission. If the basher's think that they have achieved anything with Bull's suspension they are very wrong. All they've done is shown themselves to be what we've have stated that they are. A co-ordinated group of persons whose sole purpose is to create doubt and confusion. They promote themselves as the champion of the ignorant and gullible, while they repeatedly show that they have done NOTHING themselves to investigate any claims which the company has made. I've done my own dd as you can attest too, and I am as strong as ever towards Digitcom coming through with news in the near future. Through the short life time of this thread, Bullmarket has been one of the most polite, upfront and knowlegable poster's the "No Shoes" thread has had. It wasn't until the bashers began a campain of smear tactics towards every active long poster on this thread did he begin to revolt against the gang of bashers. I support Bullmarket in his replies to the unnatural element which has invaded this thread. Good for you Bullmarket! As a final comment I would like to direct this towards the bashers... "I fart in your general direction, you stupid pigdogs!!" moosie

To: Lazarus Long who wrote (33648)	12/10/1998 9:33:00 PM
From: E'Lane	Respond to of 50264

Welcome Back, {{{{Laz}}}} ^5's for an excellent post...well, till that "hiney" comment emerged, but, hey, we can overlook that! <g> Good to see you back to your "Laz" self! Take Care, C-U tomorrow! E!

To: Lazarus Long who wrote (33648)	12/10/1998 10:46:00 PM
From: Little Engine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50264

Laz, thank you for your intelligent post. It's good to see rational debate return to the thread. A couple minor quibbles with what you wrote: first, the Louis International "contract." No, they did not call it a "contract"... they merely said they had come to terms on a binding agreement ("commits Louis International to..."). I assume this agreement was written, not verbal. I call written, binding agreements contracts. And -- you will agree with me here, I hope -- while they did not explicity say they had signed it, they did not deny it, either. So the question of signing is still up in the air. Perhaps they will settle the question soon. If you read my post, and if I really wanted to argue semantics, I said that DGIV announced the contract, but did not claim that anyone signed it. But yes, I certainly thought that DGIV was announcing a signed contract in that release -- I can't understand why they would put out a PR detaling a contract they would never sign. I would think a PR outlining a lawsuit against Louis Int'l would have soon followed, had LI backed out of such an agreement. Or vice versa. It is typical of DGIV to write incredibly deceptive press releases like the Louis Int'l one and the "German telephony network" one, which on close review shows no mention of DGIV getting any money or business there. Or the two releases about them filing financials. Or the Egyptian one, which to their credit they followed up. Secondly, on the issue of DGIV having signed any contracts -- honestly, unless they signed one ten minutes ago, I think I'm on incredibly safe ground. I cannot believe that a company which would announce unsigned contracts -- and MOU's -- would forget about announcing signed ones. Not only would it help DGIV's stock price (which it needs to rise if it truly wants to be listed one day), but they could parlay that first contract, I hope, into a few more by showing other companies that they are serious. Merely telling people in private that they had signed contracts, but failing to announce them (for any reason), would call the validity of those contracts into question. Failing to announce good news is not good business.