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: rob g who wrote (2660)	7/30/1999 8:16:00 PM
From: Phil(bullrider)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

rob, Very well said. Great companies, with great products, don't need hypesters or shills, or defenders. If the company were truly great, a short seller, no matter how powerful, could hurt it. Isn't it funny that when Bill picks a company for a recommendation, the longs attempt to take the thread over in defense? They don't realize that it only increases our interest as a possible shorting opportunity. I never short a stock on a tip, nor do I go long on a tip. But tips are an opportunity to begin investigation. A LOT of Bill's short pick's have been great opportunities to make some money. Have fun, Phil P.S. Most of Bill's long picks would have made you money, also.

To: rob g who wrote (2660)	7/30/1999 10:26:00 PM
From: DanZ	Respond to of 10293

rob, I appreciate your comments, but there wouldn't be any bickering if Bill would address two main issues. 1. It is wrong, both ethically and legally, to falsely accuse a company or it's management of committing fraud. I'm sorry if you and others disagree, but this is a serious allegation and should not be condoned. 2. Mike, Howard, and I have presented facts and well documented opinions on this thread. Our attempts to discuss salient points about GUMM in a professional manner have been ignored. Instead, Bill uses diversion tactics to steer the discussion away from the important issues. I don't mind discussing negative opinions about any stock that I own. In fact, I often ask others on the thread Z Best Place to Talk Stocks for opinions on stocks that I own. I welcome comments, both positive and negative, when they are presented in a meaningful manner. The tactics used by Bill, and supported by others like you, do not result in meaningful discussions about stocks. They simply provoke arguments. This is not productive for anyone, long or short. You said it yourself: "its obvious bill isn't a biologist or an expert in icam receptors or zinc uptake". Fine, then what qualifies him to say that the science behind Zicam is a fraud? Those are mighty strong words from someone who doesn't even know that ICAM receptors are in one's nose. I asked Bill several times to provide reasons for calling the science behind Zicam fraudulent. He should provide rationale for this statement. I posted links to articles written by doctors and scientists and asked him to point out specific issues in them. This isn't bickering. It's is trying to get to the bottom of his claim. Instead of addressing the articles, he diverted attention to things that aren't important by any stretch of the imagination. This is nonsense, and it's nonsense for you or anyone to defend him. To bullrider: In message 2662, you said: Great companies, with great products, don't need hypesters or shills, or defenders I could turn this around and say that bad companies with bad products don't need negative hypsters or shills to bad mouth them. A shill is someone who gives a sales pitch. This is completely different from someone who refutes false statements made about a company. I don't give a damn if anybody buys GUMM, but I won't sit back while Bill makes false and misleading statements about the company. This is especially true since he has a financial motive for making false statements. Typing behind a keyboard on the Internet doesn't give one the unadulterated right to type whatever crap they want without being held accountable for it.