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 (26876)	4/27/1999 12:39:00 AM
From: The Swordsman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Ditto, ditto and more ditto's. Obviously I could not have said it better. With more emphasis maybe, but never as well. Hat's off to the woman with the very fine touch. The pit bulls anxiously await in the wings for the outcome. SC

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (26876)	4/27/1999 1:11:00 AM
From: cicak	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Hi Suzanne - what an incredibly eloquent objective post ! Wow !! :~):~) Regards, phil.com

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (26876)	4/27/1999 11:31:00 AM
From: MskiHntr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Good morning, and thank you for your response and compliment. Marty's presence on the BOD to simply bring shareholders viewpoints and concerns to the table is currently being accomplished. Look at how productive Marty has been. His unbridled enthusiasm and willingness to go toe to toe with management over a variety of issues has been most successful. As a member of the BOD I don't think he could be that free swinging as he would be beholden to other members of the board; there is a certain decorum that must be adhered too, lest one be suspected of fomenting a palace revolt. We bicker enough among ourselves, let's keep that here on the thread and not let it pervade the boardroom. Suzanne, your comment that members of the company have been deliberately deceitful to further their own gains doesn't hold water if you read Marty's posts. I do not get that inference from his writings. If anything he has been most laudatory in his comments. I guess you or I can read anything we want into pronouncements from either the company or Marty or even our own commentaries. The key I think is 'is the company moving forward?' I truly do not know how many members a BOD can or should have. I've seen BODs made up of 2 individuals: the founder and his secretary, all the way up to a dozen or more individuals. On the larger boards, the more chiefs do not necessarily make success a foregone conclusion. Each company seems to find a happy medium and changes are made as warranted, usually with shareholder participation. I get an awful lot of proxies to evince my vote on these matters. Regarding Mr. Gordon's balance of $350,000.00 and his option to convert at a very favorable conversion factor. Seems unfair to you; seems fair from Mr. Gordon's perspective. It was his money to loan and lose; and it is his money to get back in cash (if the company can pay it debts) or based upon the company's success, which he would be directly responsible for, to take shares instead. His call. I wish the company enormous success, because then I'll have my "drop dead" money or my SFLB. Suzanne, I don't think Mr. Gordon, when he made this loan to the company, had any "inside information". If you think he has and he's buying and converting big time, then you ... There's always going to be a perception of unfairness; as my departed father-in-law was often heard to utter whenever one of his kids wailed about something being unfair "Yeah, well the people in hell want ice water, too." Yes, the duty of the shareholders is to be supportive as well as critical and we all can attest to the fact that we've had super doses of both sides of that equation. That's what this is all about. I do not understand, however, your reasoning that a shareholder's duty is to provide capital to the company. The only time a company gets money from a shareholder is on either the initial public offering, or potentially, a future secondary offering(s) or via the debt route with straight or convertible debt. Other than that a shareholder votes on items presented to them by the BOD or in the case of an annual meeting, they get to ask questions of the members of the company present at the meeting. Of course, you can write letters and send e-mails etc. but shareholders are usually a pretty meek bunch. I harken back to my example of Microsoft, would you honestly think that the BOD would kowtow to the members of a chat room? How this thread comes to the conclusion that we are any diffent or unique from the millions of investors out there begs my reasoning processes. We are all here for a common purpose: to make money on an investment we've made. This is not brain surgery. No one held a gun to my head and said: "Buy TSIG!" I bought my shares on the open market and I take my chances. If I get lucky, hooray for me; if TSIG goes bust, my life will go on, a little lighter in the wallet. I want TSIG.com, nee Teleservices International Group to prosper. I will continue to offer suggestions, I will make introductions when and where appropriate, I will offer criticism, but I won't attempt to micro-manage the company from my ignorant perspective. Suzanne, we're in the same boat, the number of shares we each own doesn't matter. What matters is the forward progress of the company and, hopefully, its unbridled success. I'm with you Kiddo, let's make it happen. Keeping the faith. Best, Joe