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: Mark Cox who wrote (1551)	1/5/1998 6:28:00 AM
From: Dr. Bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3347

Parx, According to Barron's last week, short interest in fonix barely changed between mid-November and mid-December, so I don't think the shorts can be blamed for this drop in fonix value. Bob

To: Mark Cox who wrote (1551)	1/5/1998 8:27:00 AM
From: john harris	Respond to of 3347

Hi Parx: Some think, "well, it's only a small thing. It's not important. Besides, I need them to come through on the big items." And these people, then, are able to rationalize why a certain "small" promise made by officers of the company has remained unfulfilled. They were waiting for someone else to come through with "the numbers" or were held up by a change that was beyond their control. Each of these items when taken seperately seem plausible enough. But when taken all together, they are an indictment as to the mismanagement that must be taking place within. (People who let the little things go on are the same people who were totally surprised at the guy who tried to choke his coach to death, twice! And even some of them are rationalizing that behavior). I believe such "small promises" by management of FONX, as were brought up by Rod, are symptomatic of a lack of attention to detail and a blatant disregard and lack of respect for the intelligence of both the public and the FONX shareholder. John PS:<<I think that "...within the next 24 hours..." is an unsubstantiated promise but I do not believe it reflects anything serious.>> I think that you meant "unfulfilled" rather than "unsubstantiated", right? If not and you wrote what you meant, then can you tell me what about the promise was not spelled out in substance? I thought that they were very clear that they would come out the next day with the details. I'm sorry if this is nitpicky; not meant to be. I'm just a little unclear as to your post. Thanks.

To: Mark Cox who wrote (1551)	1/5/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: ed doell	Respond to of 3347

>>off topic<< Parx, I really wish Mr. Pink would not attack ad hominum. There are many informed and thoughtful posters on this board, and they may be accurate or mistaken, but I don't think I have seen any "fools." Although I personally do not hold fonix right now, I continue to study it carefully and continue to stay informed. I think fonix has serious potential, but do not see the value of putting my $ into it now. I admire and value your input (you have been gone from SI for a long time and I missed your posts), and look forward to your thoughts in the future. I might be mistaken here, but it appears to me that Mr. Pink's ire is directed toward your perceptions about fonix management. I just wish that the current management would step back and allow credible new management real operating room. This IMHO would solve many perception based problems, but not necessarily the fundamental problems. But at least these fundamental aspects could be addressed as they are rather than with personnel based baggage attending the discussion. Parx, my best regards to you in the new year, Ed