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: Jon Tara who wrote (17284)	12/27/1998 4:31:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18444

JT, you are a distortionist of the major regard! So often you tell me not to put words in your mouth. Well, the fact is you have more than enough of them already without any assistance from me. But along those lines, please do not think for me or attempt to imply to others what it is that I am thinking or doing. >>>But I DO think we'd all like to know about those court judgements. And I do think it's awfully unfair that Pat has not been given an opportunity to explain them. You see, I am in agreement with PT! :)<<< You are NOT in agreement with PT, so stop trying to pretend that you are. And where or where not another individual chooses or not chooses to make their stand has nothing to do with what you would like them to do. You see, Jon, you are, at best, an irritant; at worst, being a jerk. Your disregard for Pat Hayton comes through loud and clear by your writing. You seem to have no other intent but to ridicule and distort his character, and nothing else. And what's truly sad in this, is that you've never ever provided to us an honest description of why you do what you're doing. If there's any action which can be gleaned from reading your writing, it's that you have a personal vendetta of some kind towards Pat Hayton. >>>Anyway, I hearby withdraw my list, to be replaced with your list.<<< A good move. Brady did a great job! >>>PT is not going ot go along with your "no names" term, so I guess the modis opperandi remains the same - CWIII will FAX these tomorrow. If, for some reason, he doesn't, I will do so tomorrow evening.<<< Jon, as I'm writing this, I'm sitting right next to a FAX machine. How do you know what I will or will not do. Actually, I'm glad I've kept the pressure on, because the questions have markedly improved, haven't they? Why real names? Well, like I described in an earlier post. When I recently transcribed a conference call of investors in a Big Board company, the questioner always identified who they were and where they were from. The CEO, COO and Investor Relations folks, then answered each question. Participants were limited to ask two questions. So if I'm aware that this formula can work, why not make it so that it'll work and be applicable for we, Zulu investors? Again, if you want a quality response you have to provide a quality presentation. If individuals would like to have their real names behind these questions, I will submit with the questions a separate of list of who participated in asking the questions. For example, in the cover letter, it would look like this: "The following list of individuals have been long-time participants on both the ESVS/Yahoo and ZULU/SI stock discussion threads. Most of the individuals on this list are investors, former investors, while others are potential investors and include the following: Michael Weddle, Cambridge MA; Brady Bragg, San Antonio TX;....etc." Each individual question will not need to be identified by the asker of the question. All I'm asking for is a serious representation of who is participating in this. How do we know whether or not the company might wish to respond individually to each of the participants? We don't know this? Should we provide this option? It could mean the beginning of breaking new ground for understanding, as Zulu continues to grow and in this growth its relationship with its respective shareholders. I guess, in sum, what I'm trying to get away from is the wolf pack mentality which has been ever so present among thread participants. If we expect quality from our company, then we should show quality ourselves. Comments anyone?