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 (4208)	10/6/1999 10:16:00 PM
From: Bill Wexler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

The GUMM stock fraud. A more important question: Just what difference is it going to make in the long run if I shorted a stock at 12 5/8, 12 3/4 or 13 when I don't intend to cover it until it is trading below 5?

To: DanZ who wrote (4208)	10/7/1999 1:48:00 AM
From: chester lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Dan, <<PS to Chester: Since you declined to answer my simple question about why you think Zicam is ineffective, I'll assume that you just pulled that remark out of your butt.>> And you wonder why I ignore you. I've posted on the GUMM 2 Holloweens ago. beta.siliconinvestor.com Why don't you do some research and look into GUMM's prior accounting practices. Also, you should research who the prior CEO is, what happened to him. He use to post on AOL's Motley fool and debate with fine folks like me over GAAP. I don't want to make it easy for you, so you'll have to dig into SEC filings if you want the answer. Start at www.sec.gov, and go back a few years to 1996/1997. For the record, I have no position on GUMM, because I can't get a borrow. chester PS. I still will not answer your "simple" question. I don't generally read your posts. I find them to be baits for debate which are drivel, moot and trivial. You add no value or insight to Zicam's effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Go bother someone else. C.