for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

Blimmy us three still here.

not when i'm using right guard, alan ;)

The last dregs of a discredited regime..........the rump of a gentlemans optimism society........

Gentlemans Optimism Society still waiting.

STANELCO investors website...v.good kevin hector
http:// STANELCO investors website...v.good kevin hector
http://http://www.stanelco.devisland.net

Does SEO have a department of misinformation ?

Stanelco PLC Shareholders Discussion Forum


To register and use this discussion forum you must first agree to the following :-

You are a shareholder of Stanelco PLC.

You will not discuss any companies other than Stanelco PLC, it's subsidiaries, partners, clients and prospective entities thereof.

You will not post 'share tips' or any other 'investment' suggestions.

You will not post anything considered to be 'spam' or links to websites for your personal gain.

You will not post anything deemed to be 'ramping' or 'bashing' of Stanelco PLC.

You will not post 'rumours' related to Stanelco PLC, other than those published in the press or by analysts.

You will not submit any personal abuse to this site, directed at anyone known on or off the forum, either posted or by Private Messenger.

You will not post anything that infringes Copyright.

Paul, you forgot to add no freedom of speech. What a control freak.

Mention of SEO here - not very exciting:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/12/16/cmclub16.xml

oblomov,

Am not very impressed at the way they run their portfoilo,a 12,000 portfolio with 10,000 invested in a diamond mining company and holding SEO at 16p and not cutting their losses you have thought they would known better after Marconi.

aldwickk

You appear to have some personal baggage about Paul Masterson/PM1/Sirjc or anyone who seems to fit your view of their profile.

If you have some problem with an individual, that is between you and him and the BBs you BOTH post on. This is of no concern or interest to anyone here. So far no-one has risen to your bait or attempts to try to gain support in your attitude towards someone who does not post here in any of your perceived guises of him.

This has been generally a well controlled and constructive BB for discussing a share - not waging personal vendettas to discredit individuals, or even any compny, with continual negative comments irrelevent to the advancement of reasoned discussion.

Please keep it that way otherwise it will degenerate into a personal personality slanging match that turned so many away from another BB and which does no-one any good.

Well said Tony I did point this out to him on 11/12 but not in such an eloquent turn of phrase!(especially for 0030 hrs)

Read on another BB that Sylvia has been 'sacked'.

She did s fine job ignoring our emails and thats the thanks she gets.

Tony,

" So far no-one has risen to your bait " you just have , relax Tony. LOL

Aldwickk... squelched.

I spoke to Head Office during this last week about other matters and pointedly asked the question as to what had happened to Sylvia Leavey and was told that she had neither left or had been made redundant.

Oh, and btw, I shall be continuing my research project a little more tomorrow and hope to get emphatic confirmation either about Sylvia Leavey which I shall pass on to the board.

The oily one

Tonyrelaxes - 17 Dec 2006 00:34 - 23014 of 23019

This is of no concern or interest to anyone here.

Quite right. I take it that means you and others will no longer be posting references to PM1s research.

Is there a stalker about?

Leave the girl alone!!!

zcs
You appear to have missed the point too.

Discussion of research done, or reported, by others is what I thought BBs were about. Presenting one's own take on things if not in agreement. One does not have to seek to discredit the person to make a point about his opinion. I have had my own number of differences of view with posters (ask Oblo for one) - yet I never sought to discredit them either here or elsewhere, nor do I respect them or their views any the less for having a different view on a specific point.

As it happens PM1 recently reported several pieces of research of which I was fully aware many weeks or months earlier. I, and others, often mentioning them over time. Are you suggesting we should now not refer to them any more because PM1 has?

I believe people should keep their views of individuals to themselves or present them face to face with the source of their ill-feelings - in the appropriate meeting place. Not to sneak round to other forums elsewhere to moan to others, seeking support, like a recalcitrant schoolchild.

Tonyrelaxes - 17 Dec 2006 18:00 - 23022 of 23022
zcs

Are you suggesting we should now not refer to them any more because PM1 has?

Yes.

Tony 'I believe people should keep their views of individuals to themselves '

I couldn't agree more, I found it particularly hurtful when Alan recently called me a mushroom - see his post no 22962 'I was also being told to specifically watch for mushrooms (of the fungus variety - not the Oblo variety'


Oblomov out for his Sunday constitutional