Don writes:
<< To my knowledge, you have never repudiated Rubin's charges.>>
Reread the post Don. Which part didn't you understand?
'http://www3.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/s-1947/reply-11409'
Was it << Time and Money down the drain Al. While it goes without saying that you're no Jack Kennedy, I'm certainly no Doug Sherk.>> (Was it the Lloyd Bensen humor that threw you Don?)
Or, perhaps the closing was not direct enough? << Regards, Bonnie's (not Doug Sherk's) Guy>> Should it have read "Regards, Bonnie's (not now and never has been Doug Sherk's) Guy"?
BUT, your plea regarding Doug Sherk's reputation floors me:
<< If they are not true, in fairness to Mr. Sherk you should restore his professional reputation by publicly denying the accusation.>>
I suppose next you'll ask the Baseball Umpire to apoligize to Roberto Alomar for getting in the way of his God given right to spit? Clearly IMHO Rubin and his two dupes, Lyle Abramowitz and Calculated Risk are the ones who owe the apologies here.
And what about you Roger? In response to your concern regarding the validity of my NIH posts, didn't we have a fifteen minute conversation in which I gave you my name, business name, and business and home phone numbers? Do you have - or have you had - any obligation to Sherk or to the board to at least acknowledge the phone conversation - and if warranted do additional research based on that information to dispel Rubin's trash? (I'd only ask that you continue to respect my privacy despite the inevitable requests for public posting.)
Let's make sure you don't miss it this time Don. BonniesGuy@aol.com has never been and never will be a paid shill for Zitel. (AOL policy prohibits re-use of screen names - no doubt you'll need to ask Steve Case rather than take my word for it.) Other than ownership of stock (position started in October of '96), I have no existing or past relationship with the company whatsoever.
As Kat would say, 'Nuff said?'
Regards,
Bonnies (not now and never have been Doug Sherk's) Guy (BonniesGuy@aol.com)
|
