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: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (4165)	10/5/1999 4:37:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Did you flunk out of a logic class in high school? I said: It is wrong to falsely accuse someone of a crime that they haven't committed and you and others are wrong for condoning it. You said: I don't know the accusation to be false. If you don't know if an allegation of criminal activity is true or false, then you shouldn't condone someone who purports it unless they have proven that the criminal activity exists. This is why my statement that one is innocent until proven guilty is relevant to the discussion. The fact that there are laws protecting people from false allegations should tell you that there is something wrong with this. Let's pretend that Wexler alleges that Kevin robbed the First National Bank of Fraudsville. Would a responsible person: 1. Rally behind Wexler and say good boy for letting us know that Kevin robbed a bank. 2. Ask for proof that Kevin robbed a bank. If you answered 1, you have no ethics. <I've lost count of how many people claimed that a company was on the verge of bankruptcy and were completely wrong.> Obviously nobody made this claim. I only said that to show you how irrelevant your statement was. <And just plain wrong.> It's not wrong. The only substantiation that Wexler has ever provided for his "fraudulent technology" claim is a completely irrelevant article about homeopathy. The article has nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that Zicam is labeled as homeopathic. He is just hyping his position by tossing around the word fraud because he knows that he can't win an argument based on anything factual. His "stock fraud" claim is based on his bogus homeopathic argument, so his "stock fraud" claim is bogus as well.