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: Bill Wexler who wrote (3427)	9/4/1999 8:20:00 PM
From: Surfratiam	Respond to of 10293

Bill, A big welcome back! Later, Ray

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (3427)	9/4/1999 10:42:00 PM
From: DanZ	Respond to of 10293

Bill, I have no desire to argue with you about any stock, but I do think that when you make certain claims, you should back them up with something more than just an investment opinion. Is this asking too much? Any reputable analyst would provide reasons for his/her opinion. You rated GUMM [SPF, FT] GOV/SS +20%. According to your definitions: SPF - stock promotion fraud. (excessive, exaggerated claims made by management and/or paid stock promoters). I'd sincerely appreciate if you would describe what claims management has made that are excessive or exaggerated. Can you provide links to these statements or does one have to accept your word that such claims were made? Who are the paid stock promoters and what claims did they make that are excessive or exaggerated? GumTech hasn't hired any stock promoters that I'm aware of and I would appreciate your letting me know who they are if you think they exist. FT - fraudulent technology/product. Outright scam. You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. Anybody who cares enough to research the technology behind Zicam or any of GumTech's products can read the abstracts and full reports that Dr. Epstein and I provided a few weeks ago. Dr. Epstein, Mike M, and I provided a lot of detailed research on this thread, and there is more research on the GUMM thread that refutes your fraudulent technology claim as well. GOV - grossly overvalued. Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I think GUMM is GUV and I have substantiated this opinion with proforma income statements that include projections for nicotine gum and Zicam. You haven't provided anything more than the words GOV. I don't think that anybody should take a position in GUMM or any stock without first doing some DD to see if they agree with your valuation opinion. This is especially true in the absence of any published DD on your part. This comment isn't directed at you specifically. I would say the same thing about any person that posts unsubstantiated investment opinions on SI, Yahoo, Raging Bull, Motley Fools, or any Internet bulletin board or chat room. I sincerely hope that you can appreciate this. +20% means that you are increasing your position by 20%. May I ask if you have a stop in mind in case the stock doesn't do what you think it should do? At what point would you add more to your short position? For the record, you previously said that you are short GUMM at 12 13/16. The close on Friday was 13 3/8. At what price are you planning to increase your short position by 20%? As a matter of disclosure to newcomers, and to update my position, I added 20% to my long position last week at 12, 12 3/8, and 12 7/8, and am now long about 80% of a full position at 10.65. Thanks, Dan

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (3427)	9/5/1999 6:07:00 PM
From: deeno	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Bill welcome back! Im a long time follower but would be very disappointed if you only give a rating without some backup reasoning. Otherwise you will sound no better than any other shill that might infiltrate SI. I know that its easier NOT to present your side, But without a link or presentation, lets face it why bother?