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 : PLSIA (Premier Laser Systems) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pancho Villa who wrote (1345)	12/1/1997 4:46:00 PM
From: Ken Merwin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1773

Pancho: you comment: >>Are you telling us that being deceived in this so called "open exchanges" is something you stand for?<< No Pancho. I don't see what word or combination of words I used that would cause you to question me on how I stand regarding deception. I don't support deliberate deception here or anywhere else, regardless of the subject being discussed. I don't think a little BS, banter, puffery or whatever constitutes deception. Since I don't want to continue posting under PLSIA on this I want to leave me points and move on. If there is interest in pursuing this further I'll re-bookmark the original "Pluvia vs. Westergaard" thread and we can continue over there. Regards Ken Merwin

To: Pancho Villa who wrote (1345)	12/4/1997 12:42:00 AM
From: WTMHouston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1773

Pancho: As I recall, JW did not disclose anything about being paid by PLSIA until after it was disclosed by Pluvia. In any event, his "bounty" sure didn't make any such disclosure.....I will grant you that Pluvia did not disclose that he owns/rents/whatever a competitor's product until after the discussion began. But really, is there any valid comparison between being a paid speaker, and not disclosing it, and owning a competitor's product and not disclosing it? I personally don't think so. Troy

To: Pancho Villa who wrote (1345)	12/5/1997 10:10:00 AM
From: Pluvia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1773

<<<You are rightly pointing out some of the dangers we the little guys are exposed to here at SI. I do support free speech but also believe that an ethical person should disclose how they are related to the stock. In the case of Westward they did [I don't care if PLSIA pays them as long as I know] Mr. Pluvia did not.>>> Greetings Pancho, Somewhere along the information highway, it would appear you missed some of the important information. I have never had a hidden agenda, and I have never hidden my interest in ILT -- Westergaards lame claim that I do have a hidden agenda. I disclosed my interest and association with ILT -- a competitor to PLSIA, both here on SI and on several other boards on AOL long before Westergaard (IMO) was paid by PLSIA to come after me. Unlike many here, I have experience in the laser industry and in the securities business, and IMO PLSIA has made a number of exaggerated claims. Exaggerations which IMO could cause investors to buy stock with unreal expectations, and could cause investors to lose money. It would appear you have read Westergaards claims and taken them as gospel instead of doing any homework on the subject. When you don't do your homework Pancho, you are prone to making yourself look like an idiot by posting statements like the one above. The fact of the matter is, Westergaard is a paid promoter -- paid by PLSIA to promote their stock. Something I think he has clearly failed to disclose here on SI, something I think you obviously missed when you claim Westergaard has disclosed how he is related to this stock. Something the SEC seems to be very interested in right now. I have a little advice for you -- don't invest in Westergaard's stock any time soon. I purchased ILT equipment for a business. The point here you should try to recognize is this -- before I purchased the ILT equipment I considered all of the equipment on the market -- including PLSIA's. I could have bought PLSIA's equipment -- and I would have if I thought is was better than ILT's equipment. I chose what I thought was the best equipment available. IMO PLSIA's equipment was far inferior for my intended purpose (Laser Whitening), and had potential of a patent infringement due to the clear indication that ILT was the inventor of Laser Whitening Procedure. If I had purchased PLSIA's equipment for laser whitening and ILT had been issued a patent -- I would have been infringing on the ILT patent by performing laser whitening with PLSIA's equipment and, would have potentially wasted thousands of dollars on equipment I could no longer use. As it turns out, ILT was issued a patent and they have since sued PLSIA for infringement. Two things I have predicted would occur for well over a year. The dentists who bought PLSIA's equipment for laser whitening are now undoubtedly regretting their purchase. My agenda is this Pancho, I have experience in the laser industry and the securities business. IMO PLSIA is seriously trying to HYPE their stock to gain millions from the exercise of their warrants. I don't believe much of what PLSIA has claimed -- based on my experience in the industry, and, IMO investors who bought stock because of PLSIA CEO's exaggerated claims may get hurt. Now Pancho, maybe you can see why I resent your implications that I am unethical, particularly whan my motivation was to assist the "little guy" as you say on SI. Furthermore, if there is some agenda I have failed to disclose here, please enlighten us all to what it is. I for one would be very interested in having you tell me what my real motivation is. Cheers Steve