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 : Biotech Stock Picking - 2003 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkrw who wrote (37)	1/3/2003 12:07:11 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 383

>> There should be rules against that. << There is, in Michael's guidance post, heading this thread...... "Use common sense."

To: rkrw who wrote (37)	1/3/2003 1:48:33 PM
From: scott_jiminez	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 383

<<There should be rules against that.>> Forever why? In fact, if it is foolish, it is my business and it harms no one. That fact is my personal and private choice of UNVC is in direct contrast to the influence some so-called mavens had on the selection process last year (which was revealed by the numerous portfolios containing their touted stocks). Biotransplant was the most glaring example. And the 95% incineration of BTRN may have had some VERY REAL monetary consequences for those SI participants who lacked 'common sense' and actually followed the advice of these 'mavens' (as you can tell, I use that word VERY loosely) and actually invested REAL money in maven recommendations. To paraphrase: nice job sticking biotech followers on SI with a ~$9 stock in Jan., '02 and leaving us with a .41 cent stock at the end of the year! There should be rules against THAT! Oh, BTW, that most recent trade of 'last year' you refer to for UNVC was precisely 2, yes TWO, trading days ago. But anyone with any 'common sense' would have checked your semantics to decipher your nonsense. There should be rules against that sort of deceptive crap too!