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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Angusb who wrote (22135)	4/9/1999 2:30:00 PM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Court asks Bob Quiel questions regarding Sylver's stating the stock was in good standing. Quiel responds it is based on merits, not what an officer writes... THE COURT: Counsel, if I can ask just one last 4 question. With respect to this stock, if in May of 1998 an 5 officer of Amazon indicated that this stock, that is to say 6 Amazon's stock, was in good standing and not subject to any 7 hold restrictions, would that be an honest statement? 8 THE WITNESS: In this particular case? 9 THE COURT: Yes. In this case, specifically. 10 THE WITNESS: If they said it was good stock? 11 THE COURT: If they said it was stock in good 12 standing and not subject to any restrictions. 13 THE WITNESS: Well, my only thought about that is 14 that the president of the company can't meet the 15 registration requirements. I mean -- 16 THE COURT: So that would not be, assuming 17 everything has been described in your testimony. 18 THE WITNESS: In other words, the stock either 19 meets the registration requirements on its own merits or 20 not. And the president of the company can't say, yeah, it's 21 free-trading stock°

To: Angusb who wrote (22135)	4/9/1999 2:31:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 26163

Canadian will be fine. I wouldn't want to disappoint Cindy by suggesting that I'm not Easy.

To: Angusb who wrote (22135)	4/9/1999 2:36:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

I'm surprised that Cindy can't see her own hipocrisy. You shouldn't be, really. Hypocrites never do.

To: Angusb who wrote (22135)	4/9/1999 2:50:00 PM
From: Cindy Powell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

AugusB, I got fed up with what I seen going on with Ellen and others that she relentlessly stalked and harrassed, and spoke up. I don't want to beat 'em or join 'em in the hypocrisy stuff, but sometimes if you dish it out you gotta be able to take it. And sometimes that doesn't even work. Maybe S.I. values Janice for her research, but if I were S.I. Bob or Jill, I would set a few of these bashers straight on what is acceptable "critique" and what isn't. I wouldn't jeopardize S.I.'s reputation by letting these overly basherly obsessed posters have free run on these boards as they do. If Janice would have been decent with Ellen and others, her comments wouldn't have been met with such antagonism. It was Janice's mean spiritedness and self agrandizement while belittling others that caused these confrontations. I can't believe that you can't see this. Janice, quit trying to get off on tangents inferring religious background, and "rigid" upbringing and so forth and so on. I was raised to be open minded and to recognize truth in little bits and pieces all over the world. I did not have a fanatical upbringing FYI, and was taught common sense live and live Christian principles. Sheesh. What that girl gets up to.