Replies to post #25254 on World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[ken w]

justfrank: "What isn't right" is that the facts in the so called PR are not facts. Anyone can make up a document that looks official as this one appears. I was tempted earlier to make up my own official looking news release stating that GTE landed the Russian contract after all and put the same Russian language link as proof. I have asked 2 posters of this document (Dow news about Internafta worth only $369) where the original translation site is so I can read it for myself, and guess what, no response. Many of the posts tonight by several posters appear to be nothing more than a typical disruption attempt to continue casting doubt about GTE, to make people wonder about their investment. Nothing different than what you can find on Yahoo and RB boards every day. Just that we are not used to it on this board I guess. And BTW, rule #1 is never respond to a basher, and I will not respond to any reply to this post period.

[siriuslyricher]

Board members, I am not going to waste my time finding the original posts, but there were many posters who posted on the Yahoo board (and probably the RB board as well), a link to Russian news article(s) describing the newly-formed Internafta and its contract with GTE as being related to Suleiman Kerimov, a Russian billionaire, member of the Russian dumas, and owner of the company Nafta Moscow. The news links were legitimate and no one disputed their veracity. (I always do any necessary translations on Babelfish).

[jfburk]

just, I believe a lot of people have very short memories. Internafta was a company formed to implement broadband in 30 Russian cities. GTE was a 50% partner in doing that and the company was made up of Russian investors. It was a new company formed for that purpose and the fact that it is reported that the company had such a small bank account isnt surprising to me.

There seems to be a disconnect on this thread in that understanding and between what Internafta had in its account vs. what the principle owners of Internafta had in their accounts. The Principles are the key, not the name of the company.

[Bannister]

I'm only being the devil's advocate here, but isn't it remotely possible that Internafta was incorporated with only $369 dollars, and the remainder could have been loans from shareholders? We don't have a balance sheet on Internafta, just the paid in capital, according to the Tax Service. In my state, you can file for incorporation with a statement that the paid in capital will be $500 or more.