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 : DCH Technologies (DCH) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Street who wrote (1171)	4/17/1999 9:46:00 AM
From: Sawdusty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

This may help to answer your questions Street. #reply-8726312 To All. Re: Antaeus, etc. I will have the opportunity to meet with the Senior VP, Director, and Chief Technical Officer of Antaeus at the NHA meeting this week. On April 21 I shall be meeting with the CEO, Vice Chairman and President of Antaues in NYC. Sometime after that I shall visit with the Chairman in CA. ragingbull.com I will be meeting with the next CEO of Antaeus on April 21, 1999 in NYC. The Chairman, ( not the President sorry), although willing to talk to investors about Antaeus is going to be away until the middle of next week, but I amnot convinced that will satify anything, or anyone. I am personally satisfied that no fraud was committed by either side, and that is all I can say on that right now. In answer to your actual questions about the shareholders having a right to know, Antaeus is a private company, so I can only assume you are referring to DCH shareholders. My answer to that then is the same song I have been singing all along; I work for RAM, not DCH. these are questions that need to be addressed directly to DCH, not to me. it will all be more than clear in the coming months, but I am not at liberty to disclose anything further. It is possible that I might address these issues after the end of June, but it is doubtful that I will still be a poster on anonymous internet message threads at that time; although as you can see, for the most part I do enjoy it.

To: The Street who wrote (1171)	4/17/1999 10:06:00 AM
From: Scoobah	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2513

Fair enough, that deserves an answer. As one who understands the distance required to maintain one's "outsider status", commonly referred to as the chinese wall in brokerage houses, the only access that I have ever had to information that others wouldn't have the same access to, would be projects that I bring to the table. So far, my one claim to fame at DCH is the Xybernaut deal, in which I both negotiated and closed the sales and co-marketing agreement. I am also actively involved in pursuing sales of the integrated unit, as well as providing sales "opportunities" to both companies as a result of their commonality of client. anyone who would like to assit me in that effort would be most welcome. I also seek to provide DCH with partnering opportunities, all with the intent of increasing their market share, and expansion in their field. Anyone that would like to assit me there too, would be most welcome. This activity constitutes a "limited" insiders role, and I would not argue against that definition, as one who is engaged directly in those instances would most certainly be considered an insider in that circumstance. Then of course it would be up to me to make sure that I didn't engage in any trading activity during those prescribed time periods in which "material Information" might be considered sesnsitive and could effect the stock; although the history of this stock would argue in my favor. One doesn't need to be an insider, or a consultant, or anything else to know that if he is engaged in activity while in possession of material information, he is risking prosecution. As one who has been in the field since 1985, you can be assured that I know the difference and conduct myself accordingly. You must keep in mind that of all people on this thread, I am probably the only one who would ever be subject to that kindof scrutiny, and would be insane to put myself or my family at financial risk to post to strangers on a public message thread at a time when I may be in possession of such information. As I have had many absences from posting, ( some have mistakenly suggested these were imposed suspensions), you can assume that these may have been such times. It is the assumption that because there is a consulting agreement in place, that this neccessitates unfettered access to inside info; that I argue is unfair, unsupported and unneccessary, and one of the reasons I object so vehemently to SI that they allow it. All it does is keep me off the boards, and causes unneccessary and unwarranted accussations from going unanswered and giving the apearance of validation. There is a fine line between the publics right to know, and the public's need to know. I again argue that anyone can get the same information that is available to the public, simply by asking properly for it, and not by demanding it as an unaliable right and couching that demand inside a veiled innuendo that the failure to answer is somehow an impropriety. I have enjoyed Si from the time I was first introduced to it back in 1996, and the argument as to whether I posted under 5 names or one name isn't an issue because the only issue is whether or not an impropriety had ever occured. If and when I would ever have to defend my actions, you can be assured that I have kept myself clear from that, and anyone's emotional tirade suggesting otherwise doesn't change the law or the facts. I have repeatedly called the internet, whether it be an instant message, or a statement on a thread as having incredible powers of misperception. These misperceptions are frequently projected directly from the psyche of the interpreter. That is something that is beyong our control and I no longer feel the need to correct each and every perception, as they are frequently attacked anyway, and those that have the correct perception don't need to be corrected.