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 : TSIG.com TIGI (formerly TSIG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (26189)	4/21/1999 1:11:00 AM
From: cicak	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 44908

Hi Susanne - I think you ask very fair and legitimate questions. And they need to be answered. There is definetely a divergence of opinion regarding Rob Gordon's compensation. Some feel he is underpaid and have no problem with the number of shares he owns or potentially may own. And they point out that TSIG.com may not have survived without Rob Gordon deferring his compensation etc. Others feel that Rob Gordon is out for a massive share grab and may not have the shareholders best interests at heart. And they point out that the perception of executive greed (i.e. number of shares potentially within his control) prior to TSIG.com achieving success may turn off new investors. My own personal opinion is - overall - all of the right moves are being made to make TSIG.com a resounding success - if TSIG.com can execute. If TSIG.com executes its business plan - I am not overly concerned about the number of shares potentially within Rob Gordon's control. If TSIG.com can execute on the customer service level as well as Amazon - while bringing in the forecasted earnings - I think our focus 6-9 months from now will be on how high TSIG.com's share price will climb - and not on Rob Gordon's compensation. :~) Regards, Phil

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (26189)	4/21/1999 10:22:00 AM
From: Jazzbo	Respond to of 44908

Suzanne, All unpleasant references in my post were directed at another poster, not you, as I hope you were aware. I apologize for any misconception. And I never underestimate the "charm" of a lady. I assume you received insufficient answers to your questions while speaking with Mr. Henry, otherwise you would have made some reference in your post. Correct? Tim

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (26189)	4/21/1999 10:49:00 AM
From: ztect	Respond to of 44908

Suzanne..... Your post doesn't upset me because you are asking questions rather than posing conclusions, and you also aren't, at great effort, incessantly belaboring your concerns. Issues raised are legitimate. Fervent and demagogic raves are not. Plus you made the effort to talk to Paul Henry and pose these questions to him I assume. Others, who have been posting conclusions have not made any effort to contact Henry. When you get further clarification or answers to your questions after Paul Henry has had the opportunity to consult with the lawyers, please post his responses to your questions. Sincerely, ztect