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: paulmcg0 who wrote (396)	1/2/1999 9:19:00 AM
From: Lazarus Long	Respond to of 530

Thank you for the answer... and the promised research Paul! It seems to me that being a "promoter" (assuming that it means that you are compensated for doing that work) is not necessarily a morally bad profession. Likewise, the use of promoters, does not seem to me to be an act devoid of morality. How else is a fledgling company to convert its asset of shares to cash? Is this not one of the major justifications for the market's existence? To create a means for equity financing for companies? It would make sense then (to me, at least) for a company that might have a very difficult time marketing its shares to hire an expert to do just that. I think the idea that you are trying to plant in our heads with questions about Wall Street West and Stock of the Month is that DGIV HAS done something unethical because those particular entities have "touted" DGIV and not disclosed that they were paid. But, by your own admission... Since there are no recent SEC filings from Digitcom, the nature of how Wall Street West and Stock of the Month came to be promoting DGIV remains unclear. So, automatically we are to assume that Digitcom was involved in something unethical? No, I know you didn't say that, but that is where the idea leads... Even if they were paid, it is not Digitcom's responsibility to make sure that they make all the appropriate disclosures. DGIV is only required to ensure that their reporting requirements are met. I don't see that they have failed in this regard. Hey! I've got a novel idea... why not ask Wall Street West and Stock of the Month what the nature of their relationship is with DGIV? If not satisfied with the answer, then additional digging could be done... It seems that the question is really something to be taken up with the primary entities first. I do find it interesting that in the lack of information, you would lead us to a negative hypothesis even in the absence of supporting evidence or negating evidence to the positive hypothesis. That is just interesting... but as for me, I am not going there. As I mentioned before, I cannot see a benefit for Digitcom to engage a "promoter" at this time. Now, back in the spring was a different matter - that was a time when the company was seriously contemplating trying to move to the NASDAQ and needed the price support. But again, that was a different situation (and story) altogether... So Paul, while you are doing the research on what "promoter" means, I would also appreciate you sharing with us those things that lead you to believe that Digitcom may be involved in some wrong doing... those things can then be examined and perhaps followed up. I've got to tell you though, vague suggestions or philosophies like "you should always question" or "assume the worst and be pleasantly surprised" don't get it with me... you see, I don't naturally look at someone coming out of a convenience store and think to myself, "hmmmm... I wonder if that guy just robbed that store? Those type stores get robbed often and that guy is coming out of it and, and, and..." Lazarus