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 (3617)	9/16/1999 1:34:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Thank you for answering Dan's numbers with numbers of an irrelevant company with no patent pending and no clinical research submitted. Oh, I know, it is the SAME, as far as you can tell. OK, then. Typical immature baiting by shorts: why cannot you avoid this tone?<<Are you motivated to overrepresent one side of the story by greed or stupidity? Ma>> How about answering "knowledge about a company and its products based on good, complete and thorough research." By the way, you never answered my post regarding the specifics of the machinery. If you would like, I will pull it out, but basically you were going to tell me why GUMM's machinery , based on your intimate knowledge of same, could not put out the labelling, etc.(since you brought up these factors) then I promised to answer your claims based on my actual examination of same said machinery. Regards, Howard

To: Mad2 who wrote (3617)	9/16/1999 2:46:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10293

Mad2, My cult comment accurately describes this thread because people come to the defense of the leader (Wexler), while adding nothing about a particular stock, and in many cases claiming to have no position. The purpose of SI is to discuss stocks, not to defend self-proclaimed omniscient individuals such as Wexler, who don't even defend their recommendations and fraud claims with anything more than the words SELL and FRAUD. <NEJM article and about making a me too nicotine gum for somone else to market. From a valuation standpoint Those two things don't justify 60-70 mil in market cap that is currently built..> This is a good start at critiquing my estimates, but you have a long way to go. The estimate that I provided for nicotine gum justifies a much higher market capitalization than even the current $100 million. It's ironic how you bashers are so adamant about seeing data, but you don't provide any data to justify your opinions and don't address estimates put right in front of you. <GUMM's nasel spray isn't a whole lot different than HITK's> Thank you for bringing this up. I am aware of Hi-Tech Pharmacal's product and don't completely dismiss their presence in the market. The fact is, they have no clinical studies to back up their product, can't make certain claims until they do, don't have any advertising lined up that I'm aware of, and if they violated Gel Tech's patent, then I'm sure GumTech will take appropriate legal action. The OTC cold remedy market was $2.3 billion last year, and GumTech will get its share regardless of what Hi-Tech Pharmacal sells. <p/b of 1.28, curr ratio of 3.6, p/e of 12, p/s of .97, roa of 8 and roe of 12 blah..> I see, so these numbers based on Hi-Tech's earnings and books last year justify all the bashing of GumTech, its management, and its products. In other words, Hi-Tech is a wonderful company and GumTech is a POS who is committing fraud just because you think the stock is overvalued? Could it be that Hi-Tech is valued at such a "reasonable" valuation because they have no sales growth and investors don't expect them to have any sales growth? <you may know that and be savy enough to read the turning of the tide and bail before you loose much, unfortunatly a lot of your fellow shareholders don't understand the risk with gumm because no one it presenting a balanced view.> I have said several times that I have a stop in mind if the stock doesn't do what I think it should or if the company doesn't produce like I think they will. I responded to a request for risks the other day in an honest manner. I have done the same on Yahoo. If you all would stick to discussing the company, and asking questions in a polite manner (like Bob), then you will get a more balanced view from me. The constant unsubstantiated bashing, misrepresentations, potentially libelous claims of fraud, and personal attacks, naturally put me on the defensive. If you folks want to discuss things professionally, bring it on. If the unsubstantiated bashing continues, then you shouldn't be surprised at the responses. I find your balanced view comment rather hypocritical anyway, because the bashers on this thread have not acknowledged any risk, for the most part. The only exceptions that I can remember are posts from Dale and Bob yesterday. The views presented here by bashers are one-sided, which is what brought me here in the first place, and what keeps me here. <sigh>