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.

Technology Stocks : Fonix:Voice Recognition Product (FONX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ed doell who wrote (1400)	12/3/1997 4:24:00 PM
From: Dr. Bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3347

Ed, I think you have stated the case very clearly and fairly, and can only say "Ditto" to all except the last paragraph. "I wish that fonix could be perceived as biotech and developmental stage drug firms have been perceived at their best..." To accomplish that, fonix will have to submit its technology to open and critical review. Biotech and drug companies that I follow, even while they're still losing money, have a product (yes, that word again!) which has been studied in a number of scientific, objective, published trials in animals or a small number of humans. This is still long before FDA approval, but I and most other investors wouldn't think of investing in them if some of these studies aren't available. If fonix wishes to get to even that level (let alone sustainable profits), these open, objective trials need to be made available. The demo was the closest we've gotten so far, and was a flop. Today's announcement may be a step on the path; maybe Oregon can carry out and publish such studies. But today's announcement, as you point out, is only that, it does not describe any new advance, or validate any current technology FOR THE SKEPTICS, who are unwilling to buy this stock just because Dr. Ashton, Siemens, or Oregon are involved anymore, but want/need some independent evidence which we can get our hands on, evaluate the validity of, etc. Only then will your wish come true, so I hope it's not something you expect to find in your stocking this Christmas! Bob By the way, Merry Christmas, if we don't correspond again before then! PPS Maybe we're (the skeptics) wrong on insisting on this sort of evidence, if as Frank says, we don't grasp what fonix is all about. In that case, we'll miss the boat, and at least those of us who aren't short will simply see it as one missed opportunity among many. But your biotech analogy is a perfect way to illustrate that we treat all of our investments that way, not just fonix, and your statement that perception is crucial right now is right on the money. The skeptics are obviously in command for the moment.

To: ed doell who wrote (1400)	12/3/1997 6:14:00 PM
From: Fairways9	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3347

Hello Ed, Bob etc. I look at Fonix now vs. a few weeks ago and have to conclude that there is less risk now than there was then. I recall several posts looking for some third party to validate the technology. Well, a leading OEM and a leading research facility have agreed to associate themselves with Fonix. While the press releases were long on fluff and short on details, I can only say I'm more comfortable today than I was a few weeks back. I believe the recent decline is more related to large investors playing market games than a real change in the facts behind the company. Until I see insiders selling, I'm in for the long haul with my base number of shares. I bought more this morning in anticipation of a bounce back to $5 or $6. I've seen this stock roll too much to ignore these low prices. Also, could it be that management doesn't care too much about the stock price in the short term? If I were given options as part of my compensation, I would want to keep the price of the stock as low as possible until I wanted to cash the options in. Could it be that they (Stu, Mu, and Du) are being arrogent jerks only to receive more options at lower exercise prices? Marc

To: ed doell who wrote (1400)	12/3/1997 6:42:00 PM
From: john harris	Respond to of 3347

Hi ed: Well stated, regarding perception. The management of FONX, in my opinion, are experts in this area and live the mantra you have defined as "perception is everything". I would like to add to what Bob has said about eliminating your last paragraph. I would like to eliminate the next to the last paragraph as well: I hope that I am making sense. It is my intention to make positive remarks about this release, future releases, and the direction of fonix. I am interested in what others think about these ramblings. My intention is to have an open mind regarding future releases. Neither positive nor negative. The positive comment betrays your inner hope as opposed to a more level dispassionate analysis. (Although franco will never agree with that about me. :-) An early Merry Christmas to you as well! john

To: ed doell who wrote (1400)	12/4/1997 3:07:00 AM
From: Randall E Westberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3347

Ed, There is another part of your post that I completely disagree with. <<Marketplace perceptions about fonix (such as those expressed on SI and AOL) so far have been mixed: at best trying to set the facts straight as best as they can be determined (for example, franco's posts) or intensely mistrustful and downright belligerent at its worst (take Mr. Pink, for example). >> Go back and read the first one hundred posts on this thread as I have done to refresh my memory of events as they have been reported on this thread. Pay particular attention to the Franco posts and also the posts courtesy of placido. In a sense you have correctly defined the boundaries in the spectrum of Fonix opinion.