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: N. Dixon who wrote (8910)	2/10/2003 6:10:12 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Glass technologies take time. You say out of one side of your mouth. Next week you'll be going on about how SPD isn't about glass, because it can be applied to so many other things. It's just like that time when you told me SPD was a form of EC technology, then two months later told me it wasn't. Or just today when you said you were urging people to buy, and then said you weren't. Or when you asked questions about a quote and then said you weren't. Do you even keep track of what you say anymore?

To: N. Dixon who wrote (8910)	2/10/2003 7:10:34 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Ms Dixon you have acquitted yourself well matching wits with the mutts in the pound. Unfortunately they don't operate from the same set of rules as do others. You want them to play honorably but their rule is simply that the end justifies the means. For every protagonist that defends Wexler there are likely 5 others that detest him. They come, match wits, endure his slander and vituperation and finally realize there is no redemption. This circumstance not only fails to deter Wexler but, in fact, energizes him. The success he reportedly has enjoyed in the past, along with his rapier wit, has enervated his fan club's moral standing to the point they no longer care that his methods are less than ethical and his retorts often repugnant. He portrays himself the protector of widows and orphans while cavorting about looking for vulnerable companies to devour. That people lose money as he casts aspersions at these companies he knows very little about, is secondary to the game. His success at short selling then leads him to believe that he can somehow translate this genius to long stock picking. In the past four and a half years I have seen little evidence of it. It is far harder to bully a stock up than down. Frankly I don't understand why it is so important for you to extract some kind of retraction from Wexler as regards REFR. If he is indeed guilty of the things you accuse him, he will eventually get his just reward. He may cavort with ill gotten gains meanwhile the sword of Damocles oscillates ever so lightly over his mangy head. As for REFR, as several here have suggested, the proof will certainly be in their ability to generate top line revenue and not Wexler's blessing. As you point out the bottom line would then efficiently take care of itself. I encourage you to give up this idea of building a consensus on a thread that plays by a vicious and mean spirited set of rules. I wish you the best in your investment. I would encourage you to do whatever you think is right with regard to whatever evidence you have against him but not to waste your time looking for repentance in the pound. The beast has left his mark here and the mongrels are intent on defending their turf. Don't try to confuse them with logic. Casting pearls before swine simply encourages yet another snappy retort. Finally, though I doubt he is smarter than you, I have little doubt that he is more unscrupulous. That said, if his tactics are what it takes to be "financially successful" by his definition, then he is welcome to my portion. I suspect the same could be said by you. Be patient with your investment.