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: Tatnic who wrote (4247)	10/8/1999 12:50:00 AM
From: Bill Wexler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

IOM wasn't trying to deceive investors with phony cold medications.

To: Tatnic who wrote (4247)	10/8/1999 12:55:00 AM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

<What puzzles me is how he can claim to be an engineer, yet he 's defending pseudoscience and quackery.> I'm doing no such thing. Plenty of reputable research exists to support the connection between rhinoviruses, ICAM receptors, and zinc. Wexler's substantiation for his quackery claim can be found at otpt.ups.edu. Nothing at that website has anything to do with why Zicam is labeled as homeopathic. The active ingredient in Zicam has a concentration of 2X (1 part in 100). I would agree that anything diluted to 24X (1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) is quackery. Zicam can be labeled as homeopathic because the FDA regards zinc (and other vitamins, minerals, and metals) as homeopathic. Zicam is not diluted but Wexler is too stubborn to admit it. Wexler made the same comment about Dr. Epstein: <What puzzles me is how he can claim to be a doctor, yet he's defending pseudoscience and quackery.> Another way to look at this is that Dr. Epstein and I have the intellectual capacity and educational background to dispel Wexler's claims as bogus. His claims are nothing more than a lame attempt to discredit GumTech and its products in support of his short position in GUMM. He tries to pull the same shenanigans with other companies. So he correctly called the direction of a few Y2K companies. Big deal. That has nothing to do with GumTech, or IDX for that matter. If you read back through the Z thread last year, you will find that I made comments about the Y2K stocks being overly hyped up and not worth where they were trading. I don't bring it up every five minutes because it's irrelevant to my analysis of stocks today. <People are always falling in love with stocks> I agree that it's not a good idea to fall in love with a stock. But to me that means one shouldn't hold a losing position for an excessive amount of time, especially when the reason for buying it no longer exists. This isn't the case with GUMM as the forward fundamentals look better than ever and I'm up nearly $2 per share on my position. Wexler more closely meets the definition of falling in love with his short position than my falling in love with my long position. Best Regards, Dan

To: Tatnic who wrote (4247)	10/8/1999 2:38:00 AM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Respond to of 10293

> IOM comes to mind as one "good" stock that burned alot of smart people. < Not sure I'd agree with that assessment. IOM was (and arguably still is) a good COMPANY, whose stock was pushed to insanely overvalued levels by people who fell in love with the company and paid scant attention to the reality of its inability to every justify the prices being paid. In short, good company, bad (or at least overvalued) stock. People got burned because they couldn't tell the difference between the two. The same fate will ultimately face most internet investors. Most, if not all companies in that space, will eventually fall to levels that approximate their realistic long-term ability to generate revenues. The fact that many of them are "good" companies isn't going to matter. No. I won't set a timeframe on it. And I won't consider shorting them either. To do so in the current market conditions borders on insanity. mg