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.

Non-Tech : Sungold Gaming International (SGGNF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kidl who wrote (3127)	2/4/1999 6:03:00 PM
From: Gary Brunet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5164

No one is "crying" Kidl; Just looking for some {COLD HARD FACTS}? I tried the # you gave me and they must of had it {call forwarded} to "DIAL -A-PRAYER".. On second thought, maybe YOU gave me {DIAL-A-PRAYERS} # on purpose, Aye!!

To: kidl who wrote (3127)	2/4/1999 6:08:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5164

kidl, you are an @ss @ times.

To: kidl who wrote (3127)	2/4/1999 6:19:00 PM
From: Rogue Warrior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5164

and to ALL, I don't know - we have a time honored tradition here. Don't tell shareholders anything until the rafters are falling on their heads. That was not meant to be mean spirited but the tradition goes on and allows rumours (as in contrast to facts) to flourish. As for calling, that is beneficial but the discussion must have substance and be available for disemmination to our Group. Again the history (might say 'tradition') has been pretty consistent. As an example, in criminal trials, an unfavorable inference can be taken from a person or group accused of bad things and who/which does not respond in defence. It goes back to common law where a person accused of a crime (say by the police as a result of questioning) would be expected to vigorously deny the accusation. It's human nature and was accepted in 'Canuckville Courts' as a reasonable and expected response from an innocent party. If that reaction did not come, then one can draw an appropriate inference from that behavior and the accused does not have to take the stand for the 'stuff' to go into the record. So, the next time you are confronted by the Police, the appropriate response is "I didn't do it!!! I don't know anything about it and I want my lawyer!!!" That, of course has nothing to do with SGGNF. However, from one of the unwashed masses, an appropriate response when ones integrity is challenged (among other things)is to print the following: "The statements are totally without foundation, we're looking into the matter and we will respond in due course". Unfortunately, if a meaningful response doesn't follow this nebulous statement, then the whole issue can usually be called 'weaseling'. Fortunately, the Company has no history of this and we all can rest knowing that we are in good hands and the world is turning as it should. R.W.