Pierre, I’m impressed and intrigued by the sheer amount of work you put into your Presstek research – "the massive amount of time," as you put it. Would you tell us your connection to this matter? For whom do you work, if that’s not too personal. If it is, maybe you wouldn’t mind answering generically. That is, are you associated directly or indirectly with any investment firm or vehicle or with a client that has a negative interest in Presstek’s future; or that has an interest in a competitor of Presstek? Your motivation is certainly not the "few puts" you mention. And my guess is your information-gathering was a 9-to-5 deal, not a Sunday afternoon one. I’m long PRST. So is Tom. Neil is very, very long PRST. The reason for our interest, and for the thoroughness of Neil’s and Tom’s research, is transparent. Is it okay to ask you to explicate your psychology – the striking intensity of your focus – regarding this stock?
There was a certain animus to your tone that, together with some errors, or misinterpretations, I felt your posting contained, that lessened its credibility to me, I have to say. A minor example: Why would you be moved to make a contemptuous crack about a couple of misspellings in the 1994 and 1995 10K’s, complete with page numbers? (You really studied those 10K’s, Pierre!) Those errors would seem to have little to do with the earnings prospects of the company. You’ll forgive me for pointing out, Pierre, that you misspelled misspelled. ("spelt" is archaic, but OK. But "miss-spelt" is misspelled.)
This is, of course, unimportant. We all know that some of the smartest people are lousy spellers, right? |
