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: Mad2 who wrote (1894)	7/11/1999 3:20:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

I was just going to lurk here and probably will after this, but the arguments here are old, not meaningful and ignore many facts. They might have applied at one time, but not now that an article has been submitted with major university support, not now since there has been good acceptance at an international pharmacologic meeting and not now since there are orders, well beyond what was initIally expected, for approximately 40,000 USA stores. Do you think 1. the orders really do not exist? 2.the orders will not be paid for? Those 2 possibilities would be good assumptions on which to base a short. I am only trying to figure out what is the logic here that goes beyond an admitted 3-minute look at a balance sheet. Anyway, here is a decent post link from Yahoo that was succinct and nonemotional. messages.yahoo.com I really do not care if you short. I am holding this long, long long. It will take you awhile to go through the financing agreement, but it is favorable to shareholders - I think Dan has explained that well. If you are going to short, do it soon, please.

To: Mad2 who wrote (1894)	7/11/1999 8:54:00 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10293

Tone it down Mike or your likely to attract a number of investors who perscribe to fundamental analysis to look into the story of GUMM. Mad2 I appreciate your concern and openness. However, I have no concern about attracting a number of investors who prescribe to fundamental analysis. The fundamentals will be in place very soon. If GUMM were to endure another bout of short selling (above and beyond the 900K shares already short) in the short term, that would merely make the concomitant result all the more explosive. I have been an investor in this stock for some time and have suffered thru the period when my confidence was shaken and could have easily walked away. Not having done so, then, I could not imagine doing so now. Fundamentals is what will ultimately vindicate my faith in the management of this company. I also believe there will continue a steady stream of products. It is my belief that Bill Wexler has been embarrassed by these exchanges, and well he should have. I also think that the comments Dr Epstein, Dan and I have proffered will at least give those who can think for themselves reason to question shorting this company. I, like Dan, reserve the right to short (even against the box) this company as well as any other should they become too pricey. But not on the basis of Wexler's blatant innuendo and misinformation. I am sure that he has been right in the past and may make a successful call again, but if nothing else comes of today's banter, I would hope he would think twice before he casts aspersions on a company before he has a shred of evidence. Take a look at QGLY for a peak at what happens after the fall. Mad2 I am a little disappointed in this comment. I would hope that you know enough about GUMM that you would recognize the differences between the two companies. They are huge and will continue to widen.