To: DanZ who wrote (2909 ) 10/28/2000 4:28:08 PM From: Mad2 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5582 Oh Dan,You didn't say anything that would convince a rational person that there is any similarity between Gum Tech and Quigley. Who cares if both companies sell one product targeted towards the same market? Gum Tech has a lot more than Quigley, and Zicam is more effective than Cold Eeze in the only market in which they compete. You need to read the following paragraph again. Dan, who cares if QGLY doesn't have a gum business....18 months ago the gum business (and still is) was a drag on GUMM.....what lifted it was the engineered deal with Gel Tech, giving GUMM a story, which by the way GUMM pays all the costs and Davidson et al get 40% of the benifit. I take this as proof that you aren't rational.Gum Tech hasn't shifted their focus to Gel Tech as you put it You have a short and selective memory....3 years ago the story was speciality gum.....and they took a bath on that. Last year the deal was the cure for the common cold. Now the deal is speciality gum (aka nicotine gum with Swedish Match).....that SM indicates is at least a year away. Cut to the chase, what will GUMM shareholders get out of that deal? What they got out of the previous speciality gum deals?????PS to SiouxPal: There isn't anything in Zicam that could cause a stroke. Enjoy chewing on trees. I don't think that will catch on commercially outside a woodpecker farm, and to the best of my knowledge, woodpeckers don't catch colds. Now I see your a expert on woodpeckers......or is this a result of your overall knowledge in the medical field? By the way if your going to quote, try and be a bit more accurate......SiouxPal said we have always chewed on the bark of the Yew tree.... , not chewing on trees BTW- have you had a chance to consider this. Maybe you can discuss it with GUMM mgmt.....stock could use a lift.Message 14679624