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: Francois Goelo who wrote (1414)	5/13/1999 5:12:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

Francios, Re: "SHOW ACTUAL, UNREFUTABLE PROOF OF THAT STATEMENT!" Geez, now THAT has been done before. :-) Why, just earlier here you claimed I'd said that "stating facts is bashing"...when in fact I simply did not, and instead made the point that facts can mislead and I believe you use them thusly. You were intellectually dishonest in attributing that statement to me- it's irrefutable if you ask me. Ah, but the examples are too numerous to re-post. There are SO many...oh, you did use that scam word, didn't you? wasn't that you? I can't remember, why don't you just say so if you did...or was that John? or Sid? In any event, I feel sure you are afraid to deny it without looking first. I won't hold my breath waiting for your reply. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it WAS you. Here's a proof...actual and unrefutable. There are so many proofs. YOU: <<+ Table the overdue set of financials and become reporting. It's going to be horrible to look at, but not as bad as the current uncertainty. >>" ME: You do NOT know its going to be horrible and you have nothing but admitted "uncertainty" to base such a statement on. Hence I find your statement to contain stilted derogatory intent without informational content to back it up. YOU: "<<+ Show proof that, based on the first Quarter 99 and on existing orders for the rest of the year, the sensor business is viable and will generate significant profits. >>" ME: "...the notion that proof of this MUST happen immediately is a short-sighted notion the likes of which may be only marginally significant to the future success of this company, if at all....Wonderful might be a mere continuation of the present path of increasing markets served, developing potential markets, and increasing revenues even sans profits. Oh, along with continued R&D(much of it Government funded seems likely IMHO), even an unprofitable near term future such as this puts DCHT in the thick of the race for a stake in the future of Hydrogen power and its safe use" YOU: "<<+ When cash flow allows, spend some of it on the fuel cells ideas, although they are unlikely to show any profit for many years to come.>>" ME: "the directive to "spend some" on fuel cells seems dated since the technology has already been developed through a Federally funded National Laboratory...and applications for DCHT fuel cells are already in development through both Freewing and Allied Signal."(both with NASA contracts I might add- so I suspect they'll spend on their fuel cell ideas when and if further government orders come in!) YOU: "<<Conclusion: If all of the above is accomplished with integrity, then credibility should start to return, the share price will take care of itself and I no longer will be concerned about the newbies." ME: "all of the above does not need to be accomplished for DCHT to prosper and it's shares to rise....Some of the above can't happen later since it already IS happening. ...Credibility cannot "start to return"...credibility has never left. Others here see credibility in DCHT that has never even been challenged" Completing the proof, you replied to NONE of these points, nor to others. The above from: Message 8932432 Oh, and here was another bash attempt. YOU: "Did DCHT miss out on DOE hand out and if so, why?... >>DOE Awards $70 Million for Transportation Fuel Cell Research. The U.S. Department of Energy has awarded $70 million to firms and educational institutions for research in fuel cells and high-efficiency automobile engines. Of the 21 cost-sharing agreements negotiated, sixteen have to do with PEM fuel cells for transportation and buildings. The R&D projects will be carried out over the next 2 to 3 years.<< Aren't they in the PEM fuel cells business, applicable to buildings?" Message 8915868 ME: "No hype nor hope for such DOE hand-outs have ever been heard from DCHT, RAM, nor anyone else that I am aware of. (And why should we hear that when)In fact, DCHT Technology has been developed, and I believe is still currently being developed, at federally funded National Laboratories with the cooperation of the DOE." Again, no reply from you. Hey, it's so plain that you just want to post factual information of warning that I have got to just LOVE what you do here(gag me with a shovel). techstocks.com Gee Francios, here's some speculation: No telling HOW many times you'd have wondered aloud why DCHT didn't apply for those handouts if I hadn't pointed out the obvious. Like you claim, I want newbies to see the whole picture. Oh yeah, and you still like to claim Oshinsky has or had a PR contract for DCHT....NOT that I've seen posted- never! P.S. to wpckr...sorry! I'm blowing it I guess! Well, that's about enough of that. PP.SS. to Francios....anyone who accepts your notion that facts dictate that DCHT is likely "doomed" must have rocks in their head. Hey, but you could be right! Thanks for sharing another likely "fact" for the benefit of all.