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 : Silkroad -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (253)	3/2/1999 1:21:00 PM
From: Kachina	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 626

When the thread was conceived is not at all central and I don't care to discuss it. There is no winning that one. To call raising legitimate issues slanderous is an incorrect use of the term. It would be slander if I accused them without grounds. It would be slander if I did not present evidence. I presented the evidence I had and asked the question. I had good reason to do so. I asked for and got feedback. Whether this company is a scam or not is central. I do appreciate the responses that are substantive. There have, BTW - been some long term big time scams perpetrated. For example the nuclear batteries company that purported to turn radioactive waste into electrical generating capacity. They were around for a long time until the Navy put them in jail. Moral - if you are going to be a high tech fraud, don't get into actual contracts with any element of the US government. A fraudulent company is done this way. You get a crew together of key top officers in on the scam. You then make sure that you hire people who really think this is a real venture. If it is done right, it can start up, and shut down, and nobody who worked there ever knows. In the meantime you work the capital markets and live well, hopefully salting away something for a rainy day. I am sure that regardless of whether Silkroad is legitimate or not there would be great people there. So that comment is also immaterial relative to the central question. The central question BTW - is "Do these guys have anything real?" Relative to Mr. Gorman's resume oddities - that in itself is not so unusual unfortunately. There are far to many marketing mavens who have learned that truth in advertising does not pay as well as lying. I have met a number who could not tell the truth for 5 minutes at a stretch. They did very well and skipped from job to job making lots of money generally. I am very interested in looking at the evidence - but I am still very, very suspicious at this point. As I said originally - maybe, just maybe, this company is being represented by such outrageous marketing (what I would call incompetence - viz. that ridiculous "white paper") that it just appears to have the profile of a scam. Maybe. Or maybe they are fluffing out all that stuff because of what santamaria cited. Maybe it's all so prosaic that they are trying to throw any potential competitors off course by lying about what their technology is under the covers. Or maybe it's a combination - something in between. BTW - I do find it curious that you state "finding out absolutely nothing incriminating about the company or its principals." I find that a curious statement in light of the other post that indicates that Mr. Gorman seems to have at the least "fluffed" his resume pretty significantly. I think there are still serious questions my dear fellow. Quite a few.