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 : Presstek -- Stock of the Decade?? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul abramowitz who wrote (7638)	1/4/1998 3:07:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11098

To the assumptions I posted below, you now add that the entire basis for Presstek's value has been given by Neil and George as a short squeeze. For those who've read this, move on. Maybe Neil should just start reposting his former posts. Maybe I'll start reposting his former posts. There's a recent one of Tom's that could usefully be reread, too, I think. JM To: NEIL MACK (7633 ) From: Jason's Mother Saturday, Jan 3 1998 8:17PM EST Reply # of 7638 Putting all Paul's distortions, of which you have pointed out so many, aside, I come down to this reaction to Paul's position: It is based on a big bunch of assumptions. He is assuming that because the two officers of Presstek were (novelly) held responsible for the content of those analysts' reports they "caused to be distributed," they have irreparably damaged the company beyond what its product and performance will soon remedy. (Didn't stop Fuji!) He is assuming that Heidelberg is almost history, and it demonstrably isn't. He is assuming that Fuji is unimportant, and that is one dangerous assumption. He is assuming that the reason Presstek maintains a certain confidentiality regarding the detail of its work with Heidelberg and Fuji and others I won't bother to list (he assumes they effectually don't exist anyway) is not what their press release states, that Heidelberg and Fuji require confidentiality of them (for the sort of competitive business reasons explained by Loren, for example,) but because they are liars keeping business secrets from us that Heidelberg and Fuji would be perfectly happy to have revealed to their competition. He assumes there won't be significant new alliances with other companies who see what Fuji saw. He assumes Presstek's "wall of patents" is no problem for its competition. He assumes if he says the same things over and over again readers of the thread will forget the replies that have been posted to his assumptions, and that those of us who defend this stock will get tired of repeating themselves. Well, he may be right about that last point, it's repetitiveness is getting boring. That's a heck of a lot of assumptions, and IMO they don't pass the smile test,even if they are offered in an authoritative voice and very frequently. -------------------------------------------------------------------- I think I will repost two or three of Neil's and Tom's posts.JM