Putting all Paul's distortions, of which you have pointed out so many, aside, I come down to this reaction to Paul's position: It is based on a big bunch of assumptions. He is assuming that because the two officers of Presstek were (novelly) held responsible for the content of those analysts' reports they "caused to be distributed," they have irreparably damaged the company beyond what its product and performance will soon remedy. (Didn't stop Fuji!) He is assuming that Heidelberg is almost history, and it demonstrably isn't. He is assuming that Fuji is unimportant, and that is one dangerous assumption. He is assuming that the reason Presstek maintains a certain confidentiality regarding the detail of its work with Heidelberg and Fuji and others I won't bother to list (he assumes they effectually don't exist anyway) is not what their press release states, that Heidelberg and Fuji require confidentiality of them (for the sort of competitive business reasons explained by Loren, for example,) but because they are liars keeping business secrets from us that Heidelberg and Fuji would be perfectly happy to have revealed to their competition. He assumes there won't be significant new alliances with other companies who see what Fuji saw. He assumes Presstek's "wall of patents" is no problem for its competition. He assumes if he says the same things over and over again readers of the thread will forget the replies that have been posted to his assumptions, and that those of us who defend this stock will get tired of repeating themselves. Well, he may be right about that last point, it's repetitiveness is getting boring.
That's a heck of a lot of assumptions, and IMO they don't pass the smile test,even if they are offered in an authoritative voice and very frequently. |
