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 : GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mad2 who wrote (828)	8/30/1999 12:40:00 AM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

LOL - Standard disclaimers that have been bolded and mindlessly posted on the Yahoo thread for several months now! Now tell us how dilutive the financing is and how GUMM will have a million shares dumped on the market all at once! Make sure you bold all that or cap it all in case we might not otherwise pay attention to it. Then, like my unchallenged comment about the machinery, you may be unceremoniously set straight. Nobody really minds the fact that you post ideas about GUMM that are "against our dogma" or whatever phrase that was used. It is just that somehow you just do not either read, pay attention, or understand (or perhaps, believe) the responses. Most of what you are posting is "been there, done that" kind of stuff or just not relevant specific to GUMM. Why don't you post about a potential hydroxyethylcellulose shortage? I think the only relevant shortage - the short sale ratio - has decreased by about 100,000 in the last month. Of course, there is the relevance shortage... Thanks do go to you, however, for getting our thread on the SI "hot list".

To: Mad2 who wrote (828)	8/30/1999 12:44:00 AM
From: DanZ	Respond to of 5582

Mad2, It seems like you rehash the same issues over and over again, especially when you can't get anywhere with your "new" issues. We previously discussed GumTech's contribution of $3.5 million to initially fund the joint venture with Gel Tech and I have no desire to rehash it again. I disagree that it is a bad deal for GumTech shareholders although I do agree that GumTech took some risk. We can debate until the cows come home whether GumTech took too much risk in return for 60% ownership in a cold remedy that is clinically proven to reduce the duration of the common cold to 1.5 days, and targets a $1.5 billion domestic market. Here's my prediction: That $3.5 million will go down in history as the investment that catapulted GumTech to its success and is minuscule compared to the potential return to shareholders. <how is the Citiadl Prefered issue not dilutive?> Gee, this conversation started with your opinion that the Citadel financing is dilutive and "yuk". I asked you to describe why you think it's dilutive and yuk, and now you respond by asking me why it isn't dilutive. I'm not going to play this game with you. You started this conversation and it's up to you to substantiate your claim. The risk factors that you described are normal disclosures that appear in any company's SEC filings. They are of little concern to me or anyone else and state the obvious. They protect the company and its shareholders from frivolous lawsuits and serve no other useful purpose. Does anything other than the standard risk disclosures in the S-3 or 8-K bother you?