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 Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (10825)	3/4/2004 4:49:35 PM
From: David Cathcart	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Peter, I just want to congratulate you on the recent success of SEPR (the REAL subject of this thread). It has had its own bumps in the road and, throughout, you have had much empathy from members of other cults. <g> David

To: Biomaven who wrote (10825)	3/4/2004 4:53:44 PM
From: rkrw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

OT Until sepr's downfall in 02 it had a cult following. Anyone who held at $140 (I did) didn't sell (I didn't) and feels stupid about it still to this day (I do) is a reformed sepr cult member. I guess I should have said "dedicated" shareholders. Maybe I wouldn't have received such a visceral reaction. mogn goes to >$50 LT s/h should be thrilled. I'll leave it at that.

To: Biomaven who wrote (10825)	3/4/2004 5:07:17 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 52153

>> hand-grenades << OK, here's the history of MOGN at SI: The thread was a classy place where a few biofreaks were sincerely discussing progress at the company. Some newbies showed up. there was an argument. everyone was sort of correct. SI sorts -- in general -- lined up behind irofulven, and there was occasionally-heated-but-always constructive discussion of the molecule. The thread is a repository of key business developments and data, not hype or noise. One individual took posts at SI a bit too seriously, and responded at lightning speed to any objective discussion. I'm certain that's what rkrw remembers. Miljenko's highly critical and excellent discussion re. irofulven has never reflected anything apart from his respect for the project and the UCSD scientists behind the work. Any skepticism at SI was always balanced with respect. Ward and Peter (and probably others) were all over the transition in business plan, while I was focused on a Merck product that was not even remotely relevant, from a "competition" stand. They pointed to my error, and it was a simple example of the sort of collaboration that occurs here at SI all of the time. Moreover, it meant a few extra bucks. There have clearly been three SI champions of the stock, David, Ward and Bags. Many others have contributed. It's a GREAT story, so everyone just shut up. :-)