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: DanZ who wrote (4150)	10/5/1999 9:05:00 AM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

Okay, I can now rest my conscience in the knowledge I've tried to help you. Moving along... If his post wasn't about GUMM, why did he feel compelled to get a jab in? Probably because he knew you'd feel compelled to respond. If he was really being honest with everyone here, he would create a portfolio like we have on the ZPortfolio thread so nothing is hidden Look, you're the one that's so interested in Bill's precise record, if you don't want to do the legwork, it's not going to get done. What matters to me is whether his picks make ME money. His short picks have done so very consistently. Frankly, I find the portfolios here awkward to use at best. The size of his short position in GUMM has tripled since September 4 when he said he initiated it. Right, but that's not the same thing as "three times the full position that he originally thought he was going to take." If he started with a 10% positon that would put him at about 30%, meaning he can triple his position again if need be. You failed to mention that he's down on... I'm loving this. You quote me as saying that he was down in (a) few positions, then immediately claim that I failed to say this. Suddenly all those Aggie jokes I hear around these parts make just a bit more sense. It is wrong to falsely accuse someone of a crime that they haven't committed and you and others are wrong for condoning it. I don't know the accusation to be false. Answer me this. If GUMM isn't leading investors to (unjustifiedly) believe that Zicam is a cure for the common cold, then why is that claim in the title of the GUMM thread? I'd love to, but the choice isn't mine. Do you recall having free will prior to using Zicam? We might want to list that as one of the side effects.