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.

Technology Stocks : SFLK SOFTLINK INC. Should the SEC halt this one? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Fader who wrote (30)	2/11/1999 6:21:00 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 48

You just dont get it, do you? The SEC frowns on better living through creative finance. Especially when it does not exist and the company is telling the sheep that they are raising their estimates. This and a few more items will not bode well for SFLK. floyd

To: Eric Fader who wrote (30)	2/11/1999 10:28:00 PM
From: Silicon Mo	Respond to of 48

Eric - I have just reviewed every post from both Flodyie and Bear Down to the SFLK thread...as well as Flodyie's new thread. IMHO, their entire position can be summed up here: Message 7772543 I would guess that these guys simply search for any stock under any kind of SEC investigation for any reason. In the case of SFLK, they found one, and they moved in to this thread and immediately began to bad-mouth it. To date, every post they have made regarding SFLK could be categorized as rhetorical. They have not offered one bit of concrete evidence to support their position that SFLK has actually done something wrong/illegal. I'm sure you realize this. If they did, then we all probably would listen to it and then verify it. The PR firm doesn't work for free, so the $50,000 is no big deal in my mind. How long is the contract with the PR firm? Also, I doubt the PR firm simply releases statements for the company without some backup and probably some consultation. In this case, their work should have been better. Furthermore, with all SFLK has going for it, do we really believe they would hire some PR firm, tell them to release unfounded statements about the company's projected future, only to blow everything they've worked for thus far. C'mon. End of issue on this. Unfortunately, I don't believe they have said anything untrue. They use words like "looks suspicious," "might be," and "sounds like" to hedge. Perhaps if they could use affirmative words instead of waffles, they "might" generate some credibility. Your thoughts would be welcomed. BTW, thanks for all of your support with this matter. I, for one, appreciate it greatly.

To: Eric Fader who wrote (30)	2/12/1999 8:19:00 PM
From: Francois Goelo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 48

Eric, Ref: SFLK, I have not been posting lately because I am travelling. I have been talking to a couple of attorneys about Floydie & Co. There is little doubt that what they are doing is illegal stock manipulation. I am prepared to get the ball rolling with my own money and whoever has lost money as a result of their wrong doings, can join at a later date in a class action suit, if it is deemed the best way to handle the situation. If you have any suggestion as to a specialized attorney for this action, please send me a PM. Every one on the thread should file a formal complaint to the SEC with copies of Floydie's most offending postings. The same should be done with the Webmaster of SI. I am not going to let this matter rest until we are done. Regards, F. Goelo + + +