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 (27833)	5/9/1999 6:36:00 PM
From: Ditchdigger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

And let's not forget the PP,which would seem to cancel,"the poison pill" effect of the RCLA,IMO.Gordon has converted a bunch to stock through the years,and the poison sure hasn't effected him<g>.DD PS: while this talk of takeover makes for good press here on the thread,IMO..who in their right mind would want this company and it's baggage...they have not shown through performance that there is even any underlying value here,yet we know there is a bunch of accumulated debt underlying and now floorless debenture holders who would have to be satisfied with their pound of flesh by an acquirer..No,this poison pill discussion is mute,IMO

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (27833)	5/9/1999 6:50:00 PM
From: Ditchdigger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Suzanne,do you think the company should be required to publicly clear up the question of the conflicting statements in regard to the reported authorized number? Do you feel this is a material to shareholders? Who is to be held responsible for reporting accurate numbers to the investing public, as well as to the SEC?Does this company have a check and balances system in place? How many shares are authorized?DD

To: Suzanne Newsome who wrote (27833)	5/9/1999 7:30:00 PM
From: The Swordsman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 44908

Suzanne, I sincerely appreciate your continued effort in determining Mr. Gordon's reasoning for the RCLA. The reality is if it was a Poison Pill device it states nowhere as such. Further to that he has too much personal gain to believe that it was done for the betterment or protection of a company of questionable demand. I would like to see the dialogue focus on having Mr. Gordon repudiate the agreement once and for all. But in addition I also believe that it would be beneficial for all to understand the workings of the share counts in all of the various categories. Authorized Issued Float In reserve for the PP Held by Insiders Reserved for Option Conversion, and the *specific* amount for Mr. Gordon. In the Corporate Treasury. I think it would also be of interest to know if the Form 8's are sufficient public notice for the insiders to freely trade their shares especially Mr. Gordon. Seems to be lots of share activity and no 144's being filed. Last... and certainly not least, There is another troublesome problem in the share count issue. Very troublesome. And it's part of the above but could be asked as a separate question. Are the 26,666,666 shares underlying the attendant $0.15 options in Mr. Gordon's revolving $4,000,000 loan agreement *already* in the issued share count of 95,000,000? Are they in the current authorized share count? Or is this new request for shareholder approval of authorizing more shares designed to also cover his forward looking *personal* needs? This answer to the last question will definitely shed more light on Fridays PR announcing the need to authorize more shares. Currently, if there are limited or no provisions for the underlying shares for Mr. Gordon's RCLA and these newly required authorized shares will be used for that, and it was not in the Friday PR, it speaks volumes about the veracity of the people involved or lack thereof. It will also give us a birds eye as to his plans to convert in the near term. Not to mention his regards for the intelligence of TSIG's shareholders. Should be an easy question for them to answer. I would suggest that any attempt to secure this information should be done in writing and be so noted with share counts on a specific date. Clarity here will rule. After all is said and done let's see if we can move past these dilution issues and concentrate on getting Dr. Frankel to a seat on the Board. That would seem to be the highest priority. This dilution issue should easily fall to the rear if management would be more forthcoming with written answers. SC