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 : IMDS nasdaq bulletin board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Andrew Abraham who wrote (2974)	3/28/1999 1:34:00 AM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 4122

Take a look at the chart of the IMDS stock price during the three months following Andrews membership into SI (July 22, 1998). From 50 cents to 20, at a 45 degree angle. Look for his first post, and with hindsight you can see why I posted those songs to day. especially the one where it said: "Bleating and babbling I fell on his neck with a scream." Give it up dude. This is not about IMDS anymore, it's about me and you. And as long as that is the case, I am not going anywhere. Btw lurkers: do you notice what numbers are important to Andrew: not the ups and downs of stock prices (as long as he keeps it down), but the percentage of posts to this board that belong to him. WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW! Andrew, is that how your salary is computed?

To: Andrew Abraham who wrote (2974)	3/28/1999 1:51:00 AM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 4122

Something for nothing! Member 3404397 This guy calls the plays at daytraders,com. Worth watching (I have 4 19" monitors, and build my own web pages that have frames and autorefresh every minute. So one monitor can watch 12 si threads for plays, this is one of them)

To: Andrew Abraham who wrote (2974)	3/28/1999 10:13:00 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4122

Sunshine said on Friday, Aug 21 1998 1:14AM ET "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." -- Justice Brandeis in reference to the good work he is doing on the SI boards. Message 5553273 To those who don't believe SI message boards can move a stock, look what happened Thursday after I posted a message to a thread on SUGN. The price went up 2 bucks from 16 1/4 to over 18! (My post was a good 3 hours after the news had been in the public domain, just not covered by the main wires yet.) Message 8519583

To: Andrew Abraham who wrote (2974)	3/28/1999 2:45:00 PM
From: Dan O	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4122

Moolah on Raging Bull mentioned that the patent is in Grable's name to protect us from hostile takeover. There are other ways to do that besides ENRICHING ONE OF THE FOUNDERS AT THE SHAREHOLDERS EXPENSE. Remember, protection against takeover is what MANAGEMENT wants. That is not necessarily what the investor wants. Poison pills are rarely for the shareholders benefit. Whose name the patent is in is less relevant than the BENEFITS he is paid for it. Had he received the patent in his name and granted an unconditional lifetime license without the "take back clause" and the extra, never before disclosed compensation, the story would not be so bad. Again, why was a poison pill chosen that so obviously ENRICHES GRABLE at the other common shareholders expense if it was the common shareholders he was trying to protect?

To: Andrew Abraham who wrote (2974)	3/28/1999 7:30:00 PM
From: Andrew Abraham	Respond to of 4122

Walter Wilson alias Ronald Reagan posted: Lab, IMDS may not be the mother lode, but there is a definite and huge market that they are targeting. Other companies are joining the fray. Join me in cleaning out this board, and I think we could make this place a stellar board for discussion on the possibilities. Well, Lab, are you going to take part in Wilson's plan for a "hostile takeover" of SI's IMDS bulletin board? You're one of the few left who continues to respond to his trolling and his off-point posts.

To: Andrew Abraham who wrote (2974)	4/2/1999 11:47:00 AM
From: Dan O	Respond to of 4122

Other concerns: On the promotional videotape, Deb Obrien allegedly claimed that "we are successfully examining other soft tissue areas in the body with CT laser techniques, including neonatal imaging and colerectal scanning." During the interview with Skolnick, Grable apparently admitted that they have not imaged such areas. Given that such promotional material is used by investors to make decisions, the statements appear to be damaging and irresponsible. It appears as if overly aggressive statements regarding the timing of FDA approval have been made by the company in the past. In the 1996 annual report, Grable stated "Sometime in 1997 we expect to file a pre-market application based on the test results of 400-600 cases; this application should receive an expedited review. If all goes according to plan, the scanner should have domestic marketing approval by the middle of the calendar year 1997." Similarly on 6/27/96, Deb Obrien posted on the message boards that "Clinical testing will begin shortly. The clinical testing for the Formal Premarket Approval (PMA) application will be completed in less than 90 days." (emphasis mine). On 8/27/96, when questioned about the progress, she stated "Please do not miss quote (sic) me-I never stated that PMA would be September 25-I'm not sure where you got that exact date -an exact date has never been given." It is now 2.5 years later and no approval has been received. In mid-June 1998, IMDS issued a press release bemoaning the precipitous drop in share price. The release stated that the company knew of nothing that would warrant such a share price drop. However, within one month, an S-2 draft was issued stating that the patent license was memorialized in a way that benefited Grable at the expense of the common shareholder. It further admitted that the number of authorized shares were likely to be expanded from 48.000,000 to 100,000,000 due to the conversion of certain preferred securities to common shares. The Company was likely aware of these issues 30 days before the S-2 draft was issued. It would appear that a press release giving false reassurances was made, to the detriment of the common shareholder. The company has had to restate the financial statements on at least two occasions. First, the SEC apparently demanded that the company restate because it had previously capitalized software costs that should have been expensed. Second, one AOL board poster (BOB) alleged that the company was improperly accounting for non-qualified option plans several years ago. Deb Obrien publicly told the investor he was mistaken. I believe that she was incorrect and that the company has now restated. In September, the on-line version of the U.S. News and World Report did an article on IMDS. The article quoted a woman who had been tested praising the IMDS device. It stated that she was part of a nearly completed 400 person clinical trial. No where in the article does it state that she was an employee (Head of Purchasing). Further, a 400 person clinical trial was nowhere near complete (started?). Recall when the generous management of this company GAVE the funds from the sale of their shares to the company out of the goodness of their hearts (but failed to mention in the press release that they were being reimbursed for this)? The reason they gave for doing this was to help cash flow. Some of us recall that we had a $15mm line of credit that was supposed to carry us thru as far as we needed to go. Once again, listen to their own words in the May 1998 press release: "The completion of this financing, which is structured as an equity line of credit, is signficant because it provides the key capital component for our completing FDA clinical trials through PMA submission and subsequently ramping up to full manufacturing capacity. With no future financial concerns facing us, we are now free to focus strictly on bringing the worlds first laser-based mammography system to market." Where did the sudden financial concerns come from since 5/98 that warrant this "charity" by the founders? Was this yet another misleading press release giving false assurances about our financial condition? Note that I have not even addressed the history at Lintronics or the charges of image doctoring by Diane Strait. I have simply focused on publicly availalbe information for the most part. I've said it before - you cannot separate management integrity from stock success, particularly when it comes to penny stocks.