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.

Biotech / Medical : Imclone systems (IMCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cacaito who wrote (2028)	2/14/2002 6:54:40 PM
From: Fred Levine	Respond to of 2515

I like the comments of Cacaito even tho I hope he's wrong. All too often, threads become cheerleading without reflection or analysis. Cacaito makes me think. His posts are always intelligent and provocative. PS-- I'm a long!

To: Cacaito who wrote (2028)	2/14/2002 8:18:35 PM
From: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2515

Cac, My IMCL position. I do not own any IMCL shares nor am I short any shares. Until the recent decline I never had a position in the shares of IMCL. I have recently traded IMCL shares a couple of times. I am currently short IMCL Feb 20 puts. If I am put this weekend, which seems likely, I will own IMCL shares with a basis of about 17 (net of premiums). Now you know my position. Take note that your questioning my position in IMCL implies an error of logic on your part. My arguments are no better or worse due to my ownership. This error of logic is an ad hominem use of "self-interest". Is English a second language for you? If so, I will cut you some slack for your inability to write clearly. I have not attempted to defend IMCL. Perhaps, you should reread my posts. In fact, in my first post (1765), I quoted Waskal and commented as follows, "'... the agency [FDA] does not believe the documentation is there ...' It was the one statement that was not 'spin'." My calling Waskals statement spin is explicitly negative. My read of Waskal's statement was so negative that I suggested IMCL would drop to 20-35 when it was 46. I said that before the Cancer Letter revealed the contents of the RTF. I have posted about 12 times. Many of those supported my thesis that BMY will be best served financially by working with IMCL to bring C-225 to market. I stand by that proposition. Several of my posts are negative on Waskal. Referring to IMCL you say, "a company that has proven at the least to be crooks ..." Making yourself the judge and jury does not prove someone is a crook. Again your logic is faulty. Your statement exhibits the error of "alledged certainty", attacking me for defending the company constitutes "illicit contrast" another fallacy of argumentation. Your logic is dreadful. I hope for your sake that your difficulty is "just a language" barrier. If English is your primary language then I suggest you take some time to study it and then take a course in logic. ij