Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MAELING who wrote (1509)	6/23/1999 6:19:00 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Bye the way V, how is it to go through life named after a body part? Gee, for most of us it has been too many years since we were immature enough to think that way. I guess you don't have that problem. Looks like most of the posters have indeed assigned a probability that CCSI will dominate its FIELD. I look forward to seeing the SEC complaints anyone cares to file against Wexler. That would be fun to watch. Not to mention the lengthy investigation and discovery process which would follow. Hint - anyone who wants to sue Wexler already has plenty of grounds. He isn't exactly shy.

To: MAELING who wrote (1509)	6/23/1999 12:31:00 PM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Bye the way V, how is it to go through life named after a body part? This comment belongs on Yahoo. Try to grow up. There MAY be a field, and I MAY win the lottery. So what? Last summer we discussed ad nauseum the size of the potential market for CCSI, and most of us on this thread concluded that CCSI greatly exaggerated the size of that field. Go back and read those posts on the CCSI and the old Bill Wexler threads if you are interested in discussing it some more. My comment was related to the poster who said CCSI will gain 80 percent penetration, I said nothing about the size of the field. And contrary to your assertion, I assigned a probability of CCSI's penetration at 8 percent, but it's likely to be less. Yes, there is a field, look at SPRX, it's not that big right now, and it's going to take a lot to change the inexpensive and routine testing procedure in favor of an expensive device that is not 100 percent accurate. That's the real issue; whether CCSI can get hospitals to change their routine and buy and use on a regular basis, this CCSI machine. You haven't addressed competition, even though I specifically mentioned it in my post to you. That's another factor in CCSI's market penetration that the poster on Yahoo failed to take into account. Your beef with Bill is not mine. Discuss it with him.