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 : QGLY - Funny Name Great Product. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: drakes353 who wrote (7160)	1/9/1998 10:33:00 AM
From: ralph keating	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8960

DRAKES, been here since dec 96, with the dark cloud of the sb-2 hanging over our heads following us where ever we go like a big ugly monster my question is can anyone short this baby? if so how? ralph

To: drakes353 who wrote (7160)	1/9/1998 11:52:00 AM
From: John A Satriano	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8960

Drake: FWIW, I have not had a short position in QGLY since late August. Yes, I know that you closed a short position at a loss in August. I assume you still intend to jump in with one as soon as the SB-2 becomes effective. You do continue to maintain a "short attitude" toward the stock. The SB-2 is what it is. I've never claimed it was anything other than a means to register shares for sale. You have intimated (at least) that it means that all 5 million shares will be sold, the day that the SB-2 becomes effective, as shareholders trample each other to get out the door. As you may be aware, the selling shareholders are free to sell via Rule 144 without the registration being deemed effective. I am aware of this, so I'll ask again: If these shareholders are so desperate to sell off their 5M, why haven't they done so? The onus is on QGlY to get it deemed effective. The SEC isn't holding the thing up, the people in Doylestown are. I realize this, and thus ask again: why have they 'dragged their feet' while the stock price dropped from 23 to 13 1/2? These actions simply don't jibe with the picture of shareholders desperate to sell their 5M. I remember that when the stock price rose from 14 to 18, you accused Q management of manipulating the price up so that the SB-2 would be deemed effective while the stock price was high. You said it was done very well. What happened to that theory? J.S.