SI
SI
discoversearch

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: DanZ who wrote (2647)7/30/1999 3:42:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10293
 
Dan,

Wexler is not interested in truth but (my opinion) is most likely just frontrunning a short.

Recall that I asked him on this board, if the NEJM or a respected medical journal would print the Zicam study, would he reconsider his [libelous]statements that Zicam is a fraud. He would not. He will not admit fallibilty on this or any other point which we spent a good deal of time getting him to admit. He has made up his mind and chooses to misrepresent, libel and look at facts. WHy try to understand them when you can appear clever by obfuscating them with sarcasm.

He is not interested in truth, only trying to get others to short the stocks he does. And if he libels the company, he does not care.



To: DanZ who wrote (2647)7/30/1999 5:34:00 PM
From: Bill Wexler  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10293
 
<<You obviously need an education in the relationship between zinc, ICAM receptors, and the common cold.>>

And you obviously need an education in the relationship between stock promoters, pseudoscience, quackery, and gullible victims.



To: DanZ who wrote (2647)8/2/1999 9:30:00 AM
From: JDN  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10293
 
Dear Dan: Boy, Wexler sure knows how to yank your chain! haha. I would imagin that his concern with GUMM is not the scientific data of which he likely is not in a position to dispute but the valuation of the company. A company can have a good product and still be overvalued. If you wish to argue with him I think you ought to post information supporting current and future anticipated GUMM valuations. JDN