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 : American International Industries Inc. OTC BB Symbol EDII -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BigDaddyMac who wrote (4338)	1/3/1999 8:47:00 AM
From: Needticker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4814

Just relaying: Subject: Re: The loan Date: 1/2/99 7:46 PM Eastern Standard Time From: LQQX Message-id: <19990102194629.05289.00006642@ng11.aol.com> holloway writes: << LQQX, surely a person of Daniel Dror's intelligence does not have to be told that a "loan" such as that needs to be properly recorded.>> Innuendo again holloway. But I'll address it again for your complex duplication requirements. Daniel already knew it needed to be properly recorded, as he would have taken care of it in some way. He was simply told that the IOU was the best way to handle it. << I have often thought that LQQX has been over reaching with claims like that. >> Or so holloway needs to think. << Now the claim is that there was no audit going on, just a "review". Somehow that does not seem quite consistent with the previous information, although I agree that most likely there is no legal requirement for an audit for this particular filing. >> holloway, you are certifiable. You know virtually nothing about the subject, but are running your mouth anyway. Reviews are all that's required for filings for anything other than year end financials. A review is 99.99% as accurate as auditing, as the many pages contained in the financials suggests, and all that is required, all that is required, all that is required, all that is required. All that is required. Dana writes: << I don't think that the documents are "approved" as stated earlier. >> If the SEC has a problem with what's being submitted, or the auditors have a question for the SEC, the SEC will inform the company or the auditors of proper protocol. The example that was given is the teleconference with the SEC, BDO, John and Daniel concerning the shares issued for past acquisitions. The SEC was satisfied that the way the company wanted to record the transaction was legitimate, so the SEC approved it. We could use the words OK'd, supported, cleared or 20 other synonyms. Try not to get too anal about terminology. jmt via holloway writes: << So here we are. >> LOL Yes we are --- where ever we go. << Now I recognize you. And with the threats of libel. The last thing EDII would want is additional attention.>> On the contrary. EDII will enjoy the extra attention. Prosecuting for libel would make interesting reading. << Concerning the filing. SEC approved??? What a line of bullshit. >> I prefer the circular type. See above. << Are you suggesting BDO would not sign off and the SEC would? >> No. You are. BDO signing off on anything is not a requirement for filing financial reviews. << The SEC does not do audits. To clarify, they would only approve the format, not the content. >> Wrong once again, mental Goliath. They do audits if a company is suspected of fraud. This obviously not the case with EDII. << Is this some kind of last ditch attempt to create demand prior to a reverse? Do those authorized preferred shares set the stage? >> Reverse split talk is lunacy, of course. Daniel was only involved in one reverse split. Microtel was going to be delisted by NASDAQ for violation of the minimum share price rule, and they reversed split to remain. In retrospect, Daniel said that he probably shouldn't have, because it was no big deal to be delisted. He felt more harm was done by reverse splitting. Sounds like he doesn't like reverse splits. jmt's going to harp on this, as it is his way, so whatever... (-; LQQX

To: BigDaddyMac who wrote (4338)	1/3/1999 8:54:00 AM
From: Needticker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4814

Just relaying cont' Subject: Re: Pitts and Spitts Date: 1/2/99 11:34 PM Eastern Standard Time From: LQQX Message-id: <19990102233450.29451.00006240@ng12.aol.com> holloway writes: << Well, LQQX, Janice Shell thinks you are the notorious Carl Kruse. Here is her post: >> LOL Well, holloway. You certainly are a confused little grasshopper. So far, you've suspected me of being Oaktree on another thread, Top Dog, Kevinl, Joe Gort and now Carl Kruse. Pretty soon, I'll be everyone on this board. Save effort and just head every post with, "To whom it may concern.". It'll give you more time for resolutional delusion therapy. And SI Needleticker's most excellent observation: << Don't know who Carl is and don't care. Don't know who you are, and don't care, but I do know who LQQX is. The only thing I do know is, there are no detectives here. >> holloway further writes: << Is that gross income or net? From the info that I saw on Edgar, there were considerable expenses, and you may be quoting a gross income, rather than net. Maybe these issues will be resolved once access to the free Edgar URL is available again. >> That $120,000 royalty check is net. No operating expenses. No other expenses. Royalty, free and clear. $600,000 dollars worth of EDII stock exchanged for the guaranteed income. Net. jmt writes: << 4) There are so many names we all recognize on many stock transactions. Elk international ( controlled by Dror's brother) had options for $2M shares at a price of 2 cents per share, which was exercised (and dumped during the hype) in June. They are then issued an additional 5M shares and 3.5M at 3 cents per share. >> Those shares were never, ever sold on the open market. Elk International has never sold a share it has accumulated. Never. Any concerns or questions about this should be directed to: Daniel Dror, (281) 331-3764 Jeff Bugenhagen, (713) 659-6551 at BDO Seidman, or EDII company lawyer: Tom Pritchard, (713) 209-2911 Five million shares were bought at .03 by Elk, and represented a large majority of Christensen's EDII holdings. << Is this some kind of last ditch attempt to create demand prior to a reverse? Do those authorized preferred shares set the stage? >> Those shares were applied for, and not used for future negotiations during acquisitions. Sometimes they are issued as incentive for owners of the companies to close the deals. Any questions on this should referred to the people answering the above phone numbers. LQQX

To: BigDaddyMac who wrote (4338)	1/3/1999 9:08:00 AM
From: jmt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4814

Mitchell: Glad to see your back. And still in that same uncomfortable position you tend to enjoy. I see lakers has you number on the BNEZ thread. Wonder if he would like some company?? jmt

To: BigDaddyMac who wrote (4338)	1/3/1999 10:51:00 AM
From: ColleenB	Respond to of 4814

Mitchell.... that comment wasn't necessary.... through all of the turmoil we've endured here on the EDII thread, we've finally learned to stay focused on the subject topic. We've learned to get along with one another and behave like rational civil adults. We've grown, and can now discuss issues relating to EDII, be it pro or con, and leave personal insults out of our posting. And yes, jmt had something of a personal jab at you, but his was mild in comparison. So, I'd appreciate it if you two boys would behave more adult-like, and exercise restraint. Let's not regress. Topic at hand..... are the EDII financials that were recently released to the public.