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: Roger G. Budgell who wrote (3182)	2/19/1999 1:38:00 AM
From: Rogue Warrior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5164

Roger and David, Thanks ... if there are three of us, there have to be more. And we're not wild eyed radicals,feeling sorry for ourselves. Again, if blame for buying SGGNF is a factor, a mirror takes care of responsibility. But that is irrelevent - only the questions that have been legitimately asked are relevent. I was never involved with Bre-X (the train came and left) but I did follow a portion of the 20,000 plus posts and I see a disturbing parallel on this thread. Phone calls to the Company on an individual basis is good due dilligence when the answers are clear and available in the public domain. If SI is not chosen as the forum, last I looked, there was a web site. This was and is a high risk venture - most of us have accepted that as fact and we plunged on in good faith. For those of us who've tried to practice due dilligence, internal and external to the Company, the results have not been reassuring. Without further history, please go back to the events that led up to the VSE halt. There were many lessons to learn from that series of events. Without revealing state secrets, the Band issue is long over due for comment and in the public domain. If that can't be accomplished by company calls, perhaps this might provoke response (unlikely, but again, bad things happen when good people do nothing). There are no personal attacks in this but the invitation to respond to shareholders publically on important issues in a timely manner. If that is negative as perceived by the Group, then we've got more serious problems. To those who feel insulted or enraged by this post, that was not the intent and I can do little to change that reaction. It's late and enough on this issue. It's time for reasonable and open discussion. The major issues are on the table and answers are required - in the public domain. The best to all. R.W.

To: Roger G. Budgell who wrote (3182)	2/19/1999 1:41:00 PM
From: kidl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5164

Hi Roger, Maybe there is one more question worth pondering. It's the one that no one I have spoken to recently, has been able to answer: Let's assume for a moment that bad news are in fact being withheld from shareholders. Who would benefit and how? Obvious answer: INSIDERS by selling their paper. Trouble with this scenario, there is just not enough trading volume especially if you consider the double accounting of trades on Nasdaq. Also, every other time I got nailed by insider selling, it always happened as a P & D. In this case I fail to see the Pump portion of the equation. Less obvious answer: Kim needs to hang on to his salary as long as possible. A bit hard to believe given Kim's family background and my estimate that his salary may not not even cover the cost for his favorite past time, horses. Anyone out there with a logic explanation for withholding negative news? Regards kidl