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.

Biotech / Medical : Chromatics Color Sciences International. Inc; CCSI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JanyBlueEyes who wrote (5490)	7/7/1999 12:43:00 PM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5736

This is the best they could come up with? Two "blatant errors," one of which really doesn't have any impact? (the Avon contract) I especially like this statement though: a Thomas Claugus is attributed with false and misleading statements about the development, testing, regulatory clearance and use of the System; providing a self-serving underestimate of the potential size of the market; and making an irrelevant comparison with another product that does not appear to have a comparable range of applications. Just exactly who is attributing false and misleading statements to Mr. Claugus? If it is CCSI, why don't they come out and say he made false and misleading statements? Do they think if they skirt around actually saying he made false and misleading statements that this accusation is somehow not from CCSI? Is theis an attempt to avoid being sued by Mr. Claugus? Or is it just a very poor attempt at legal-ese? And then they don't really discuss his "underestimate" of the market size, or the product which is supposedly not comparable. They just throw it out there to see if it makes some kind of impression. I really would have expected more from a rebuttal.

To: JanyBlueEyes who wrote (5490)	7/7/1999 4:01:00 PM
From: Marconi	Respond to of 5736

Hello JanyBird: CCSI PR about Barron's article is lame. Very lame! The writer should be fired IMO...it is a public declaration of lame idiocy IMO. Best regards, m PS Rats! No 'Barron's Effect'

To: JanyBlueEyes who wrote (5490)	7/7/1999 5:48:00 PM
From: USRX888	Respond to of 5736

Jany I thought you sold a majority of this stock @ 12......When a company has to keep defending itself you know this can't be a good thing...there are so many other stocks out there why get married to this one........You should of had the same loyalty to AOL a few years back good luck............ 888

To: JanyBlueEyes who wrote (5490)	7/10/1999 2:15:00 PM
From: JanyBlueEyes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5736

CORRECTIONS IN BARRONS "In last weeks Question & Answer (Reluctantly Short) Thomas E. Clagus erroneously stated that Chromatics Color Sciences stock price dropped when the company lost its colorimeter business with Avon in the late Eighties; Chromatics stock was not publicly traded at the time. Also the company did use blood tests, in addition to the ruler type device mentioned by Claugus , in FDA trials for its meter to detect jaundice. The interviewee stands by his market estimate for the new meter's disposables."