Pluvia vs. Westergaard Message Board

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.

Biotech / Medical : Pluvia vs. Westergaard

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Superhawk who wrote (730)	8/31/1997 12:31:00 AM
From: Louis Riley	of 1267

<< Brandishing a gun in public and engaging in extortion are clearly against the law; in P vs. W, probably neither side has done anything illegal. >> Perhaps one of the sides has done something illegal. It seems to me that the one party in this matter who has truly been harmed and has legal standing to seek redress is Premier Laser(not to mention its shareholders). On or around July 28, 1997, "Steve Pluvia" published messages in at least two public forums (SI and the Motley Fool)that stated that the company had shipped no lasers to any customers(other than those used for training). In the company's recent 10-Q the company states that they did indeed ship nine lasers to customers during the three months ended June 30, 1997. So, there are only two possible outcomes here: either the company has lied in its filing, and should be immediately investigated by the SEC, or "Steve Pluvia" has libeled the company. If the latter outcome eventually proves to be the case, all of impassioned defenses of "Steve Pluvia's" "rights" have been a foolish waste of bandwidth.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next