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 : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (12603)	12/14/1997 7:07:00 PM
From: Arthur Radley	Respond to of 32384

I will admit that I did support him in the past but will not in the future.Your points are well-taken. The message that you listed and what was written has no place on the thread since it dealt with a real person. Bernie, You are a good Cub Reporter and you should stick to that and leave the fantasies in your mind.

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (12603)	12/15/1997 12:53:00 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 32384

I would like to register my agreement with your proposition that posts that appear to offend individuals or groups destroy the quality of the threads and should not be given the dignity of a response. Since anyone can post to the internet, I suppose all we can do is register our protest and then ignore the poster. It is also possible that ignoring the post alone is most effective, since some who post inappropriate comments may crave the attention.

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (12603)	12/15/1997 1:03:00 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 32384

I would like to go on record in support of you position. I saw nothing subtle in the posts. I recall another one but do not intend to post the link. I don't think it is necessary to post any more specific passages, in fact I believe they should be deleted from the record. Regards Zeuspaul

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (12603)	12/15/1997 2:07:00 AM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

Timothy Lamb, I have never had a problem dealing with many posters here and some are very tenaciously boring and aggresive. Bernie came back and did not have any problem with anybody until Courtney came with very nasty and personal comments that you are not reporting here, her very rude, callous and insensitive comments, not called for in any way , against Andrew and Henry's daughter soccer games. Henry was very courteous to her. And then she came back accusing him of not being sensitive for her father problems. Besides, she did even worse and accused Henry of criminal activities (accusin him of being a Ligand agent). That was pure libel, she does not have any proofs of this and she is just lucky to be posting after that one, or worse to have a legal problem . If I am wrong, I am very sorry is just from memory, not time to go over 10,000 posts, please correct me with her posts. She also accused Henry of certain lack of duty as a scientist for not presenting against Ligand (on this one claiming some moral rectitude). She could not distiguished Henry's scientific activities in his life, versus his investment activities. In this thread he is clearly an investor with strong scientific background, not a scientist looking for science. It is clear to everybody here. Where is your disclaimer about her?. Why do you continue to support her cause? I do not like many of Bernies comments in the pasts. But I has conducted with him a dialogue without any problems. If you are going to moralized be more inclusive. There are many around who are just plain envious of Henry and are after him at the smallest chance of a mistake (a very rare thing on him). This thread has become a pro or against Henry because of the many attacks against him (most unjustified and absurd). Many ask for Henry to do a public duty in this private place, to control others posts. But they want to get rid of someone who is publicly posting base on private place rules. Twist again. I recognized that you are not asking for expulsion, but for personal decisions from each poster which is fine. I will not pay attention to many posters personal and or insultive attacks, I have done that in the past, avoiding conflicts here all along. I will not respond to any of Bernies innapropriate jokes or attacks. I do expect from you to check Courtney's posts in Ligand and disclaim everything innapropriate on them.

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (12603)	12/15/1997 3:26:00 AM
From: Andrew H	Respond to of 32384

Timothy, I find it interesting that the only things you have to say on the LGND thread are in regard to Bernie. While I have found some of Bernie's posts offensive and said so publically more than once, I find most of tonyt's, NAH's and Wilfore's equally offensive, but I live with them. And there is simply no question that Bernie has added more valuable information to the thread re LGND than tonyt, NAH and Wilfore combined. >>I guess everyone on this thread should consider whether they'd ever want to introduce their sister or daughter (Henry or Andrew remember this when you discuss the soccer team with this guy) to this guy before they start conversing with him again.<< Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but personally I have no need to consider introducing everyone I converse with on SI to my daughters or sisters. BTW, if you had bothered to read the thread you would know that Bernie does not participate in the soccer conversations. >> but all of this guy's supporters should check his posts. Then if you continue to support him everyone will know where you stand. << Just what do you mean by his "supporters?" Are you suggesting that anyone who addresses a post to Bernie or "converses" with him supports his "offensive" comments? Who are these un-named supporters you refer to and in what way are they supporting him? I have not seen any support of the comments you cite. >>Now he's starting with Nancy again.<< I think if you would read the thread, you would find that Nancy had actually started this latest conversation. Bernie was responding to her. exchange2000.com >>Henry will you continue to support this guy? You've encouraged him in the past. .<< Nancy said the same thing. Can you please explain this accusation--in what way has Henry "encouraged him in the past?" In conclusion I agree that there have been a couple of offensive comments made recently which you pointed out. However, as Cacaito so clearly stated, your own attitude has a somewhat holier-than-thou tone to it. You ignore the attacks made on Henry. You seem to paint all the regulars here as supporters of these offensive comments which I find offensive in itself. And you seem to suggest that if we post to him at all, we are supporting his comments and then "everyone will know where we stand." I agree the offensive comments should be either disparaged or ignored.

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (12603)	12/15/1997 8:22:00 AM
From: tonyt	Respond to of 32384

Well, since he never had anything negative to say about Ligand, don't expect Andy to have a problem with it. However, if he ever does say anything bad about LGND, I'm sure Andy will attempt to bully him off the thread with snide remarks, inuendoes and not-so-subtle attacks or maybe he will spearhead an email writing campaign to the webmistress ;-)

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (12603)	12/15/1997 9:16:00 AM
From: Henry Niman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32384

Timothy, As I have said in the past, I would like to see posts focused on LGND. Others have complained (here and elsewhere) that the thread has become somewhat unmangeable (in size) due to irrelevant and repetitive posts. I don't manage this thread. I created it as means to discuss LGND and related matters. I would hope that others would focus on the company and not individuals. Some negative posters have joined the thread in the past and more so recently. These posters have had little if anything to say about LGND. Some seem primarily interested in provoking and attacking. I don't share their interest.

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (12603)	12/15/1997 1:19:00 PM
From: HB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32384

My initial response to the McDermott post (on the PCYC thread, referenced by Tim in the post this responds to) was to consider complaining to Jill. I decided to do nothing, ignore the guy, and hope he would go away. Perhaps it is better that we try to regulate ourselves somewhat the way a group does in conversation. I am particularly concerned that women not be discouraged from sharing their insights on this and other threads because of that kind of post. By the way, I had assumed "Courtney" referred to a model or celebrity not involved in SI. If I had known that she was a real SI poster I almost certainly would have mailed Jill to complain immediately. However, perhaps it's better that we discuss this in public before taking it to the authorities. So for the record, I strongly object to the threatening tone of McDermott's post, especially the innuendo suggesting sexual violence. I object, much more mildly, to graphic off-topic crude but nonviolent fantasies about TV personalities appearing on these threads, mostly on the grounds that they may make it uncomfortable for some women to participate in these discussions, and we need everyone's opinions about Ligand. Re Nancy and Courtney's views on Henry, I consider it a bit strange the amount of time and attention he devotes to every tick of Ligand. I have found, nonetheless, that he possesses plenty of accurate information about Ligand, has a good sense of what's going on in various deals they are involved in, had very useful things to say about the ALRIZ/ALRI/LGND business. If he's a little touty and prone to induce buying panic at inopportune times, well, I've immunized myself to that -g-.

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (12603)	12/15/1997 9:01:00 PM
From: Flagrante Delictu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

Timothy Lamb, << Looks like he's about to start his subtle attacks again. Why am I not surprised it's a woman, again>> It's only against you again, Timothy. You probably remember my post to you when you attacked Vector1 & Andrew H. I posted you in their defense & asked you to respond to my post. I'm still waiting. If I'm not mistaken & I apologize if I am, you told us then that you had a wide circle of friends with very diverse backgrounds & that if a posting appeared that upset either you or your friends, you would inveigh against it, because whatever upset your friends upset you. Please pardon if I paraphrase your post as I don't have access to it at this moment, but I hope I remember it quite well. When you went after my esteemed colleagues, I challenged you to tell us whether you were representing your own opinion or that of someone who wasn't even an SI subscriber. Naturally, when I saw your letter I was excited that you finally had answered my post. It now appears that you did not. But you did something unique on this thread. You brought in a post that had been written on another thread, the PCYC thread, by me to attempt to display the baseness of my turpitude. You brought that onto this thread, whose membership has long protested the introduction of non-LGND postings . The post was about three weeks old at that time & neither you nor anyone else had complained about it on that thread up until after you put it on the LGND thread. And to this moment, neither you or NAH have complained about it on the PCYC thread. You know it's not considered kosher to bring posts from other threads onto this thread unless they relate specifically to LGND. I find it very suspicious that this post appeared at 3:00p.m. 12/14 /97, a few short hours after my 11:51 a.m. post on this thread on the same day requesting that NAH tell us the name of stalker & the stalkee & to provide whatever posts or email she had to back up her apparent contention that I was stalking "Courtney" without mentioning which "Courtney". That was a very simple request of NAH which she has not yet answered. Instead, approximately 3 hours after my request to her we find this PCYC post provided by you. I notice that you do not accuse me in this post of yours of stalking Courtney Willfore. Instead, each of you have so far left yourself an out & possibly only someone who didn't read the post carefully has fallen for your trick. In America, jurisdiction is an important element that protects the citizens from unlawful prosecution. If somebody alledgedly commits a crime in Honolulu, he cannot be tried for that crime in Alaska. If the people in Honolulu choose not to try him for an alledged crime in Honolulu, he cannot be tried elsewhere for that alledged crime. In this case, those that seem to be offended are apparently offended in my post to squetch by the words," In my continuing decrepitude I'm beginning to fantasize about a certain Courtney who has so far been able to elude my offensive clutches by running like the wind into various wooded areas.Bernie. The facts are that Courtney Willfore never posted on the PCYC thread, & there was no reason to suspect she would because PCYC has no programs in PD, but even if she did brouse the site, there was no mention of "Courtney's last name, no indication of age, gender or species, & no plausible reason to believe that of all the Courtneys in the world, male, female or otherwise, that the Courtney I was puportedly beginning to fantasize about was Courtney Willfore. Of course, for the politically correct contingent, they are absolutely certain that only Courtney Willfore could be the one. Sorry to bust their bubble, not only wasn't it she , but the bit about the fantasy was part of a running joke on that thread between squetch me in which I pretended I was involved with such women as Claudia Schiffer, PhD., Kitty Galore, interested in Janet Reno & others whose imaginary names I forget. Anyone who chooses not to recognize that this was humor & not reality, should take a good look at me to easily change their mind. However, I hereby apologize to Miss Willfore & to all the others offended by this & other posts & will attempt to deal with the facts only & eschew humor & obfuscation. Bernie.