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 : DIGITCOM (DGIV-OTC-bb)Information Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus Long who wrote (382)	12/30/1998 1:11:00 AM
From: Dolfan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 530

Thank You Laz for taking your time and visiting the DGIV office. Also thanks for your post on your visit. I didn't see much mention of the Contract. Did you see it? Also, were you able to get any info on any SEC filing in the future. Thanks Laz, Mark

To: Lazarus Long who wrote (382)	12/30/1998 3:56:00 AM
From: paulmcg0	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 530

I didn't see an answer to the question I raised on the other thread... Did you ask Jimmy Chin why DGIV keeps using penny stock promoters to hype the stock?

To: Lazarus Long who wrote (382)	12/30/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: E'Lane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 530

Just got a call from Laz. It seems that after spending a couple hours this morning typing out "the rest of the story", someone decided to pick up the phone and start dialing. You guessed it...computer booted him and he lost his work. Needless to say, he was a bit disgusted as he had put his leave taking on hold while he did this for us. All for naught. He has to hit the road to get back home from his holiday visit to mom's, and he requested I post some small info here. Anyway, here is the (basically) verbatim "bullets" on the next point he wanted to post on. He will expand on them, and add the info on the other points (yes paul, he will comment on the PR question he asked for you) tomorrow when he returns home. Point 2 EGYPTIAN CONTRACT: 1) There were $$ numbers on the contract, and the denomination was US $$. However, any amounts were blacked out and aren't legible, so to those who thought we should analyze the numbers...sorry, no can do. Note: That last "no can do" comment came from me. We do not have "verified" numbers, but only "rumored" numbers at this point. 2) There was a confidentiality clause in the contract that spelled out how the paperwork was to be handled and under what circumstances information could/would be released from the agreement. 3) If you noticed, when Laz posted, he typed contract as "contract". This was because it is actually a "MOU". Now, don't jump to conclusions on this one. This "MOU" is a "legally binding agreement with responsibilities delineated". (That quote was so you would know this was an actual "Laz" quoted post) I received a pm this morning from someone commenting on this fact. I will include a comment from him.. In the eyes of many people, an MOU is not a contract. That is certainly true in the US. This does not hold true with foreign countries. He goes on to tell of MOU's with foreign countries within the company he works for and the revenues that come in from those MOU's. They are legally binding contracts for all intents and purposes. ( A fact that has repeatedly been pointed out on the thread.) OK...that was what I was requested to post, will a few small additions, <g> from Lazarus Long. He will be on the road until late tonight, so expect any replies to be commented on tomorrow! LCDR E'Lane...reporting in for Laz