>Sturza on ADRX?
>Why not have recruited SI's own Jim Silverman,
>who was recommending it at 17?
That would have been nice :)
If you look at a 2 year chart at
quote.yahoo.com
you will notice that the last time ADRX was at $17
was back around Feb of 1997.
I did not accept write ups from SI members until about April of
1997.
techstocks.com
>You recently asked me to write a second article for your newsletter, >this being the first........
>http://www.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/newsletter-14-6
>I replied that I would do such if you would write a brief report, >acknowledging good picks from the past. You insulted me by pointing >out that MOGN was "only" up about 70% at the time, failing to hold >the 420% spike.
I am sorry you were insulted and did not mean to.
Actually, you "insulted me" and my newsletter because you
wanted me to me to preannounce your article 1 week in advance
by saying, "Richard Harmon, the writer that brought you MOGN and was up 420%......." You gave me this condition as an ultimatum and you
would not write the article unless, as I felt, misled
SI members and my readers.
The truth at the time was that MOGN was only up 70% (at the time) and you wanted me to tell my readers that your stock was up "an astounding 420%" for one or 2 days at one point because it was hyped by the media. If you read my newsletter you would note that it
does not involve a lot of hype or mislead its readers.
The truth is, MOGN is up about 160% and your write up is most
likely the best performing one to date. You are very smart,
a good stock picker and would I would very much like to post one of your write ups again.
>Your newsletter is increasingly turning to the old, rehashed ideas >of other newsletter editors (Sturza, Johnson and Murphy, for >examples) or of a multitude of fund managers and analysts (David >Saks, Joe Dancy and Michael Murphy on biotech???). Why not maintain
>a quality level of contribution by acknowledging past contributions >when they deserve recognition??
>Do you want quality, or do you merely want to continue with drivel >and filler (certain exceptions noted, such as the contributions by >Michael Burke)?
I do not know what you are saying here. You do not want me to use
respected names in the biotech and technology field?
My readers may have a problem with this.
Michael Burke will be providing a write up in the December 17 issue.
Are you saying that you want more SI member write ups????
If so maybe you can point out some members to me that may be able
to provide write ups.
Mark |
