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 : Biotime-Nasdaq's best kept secret? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (699)	2/16/1998 1:05:00 AM
From: Keith J	Respond to of 1432

Bill, I'm not trying to get into a running argument on this, but opinions are a lot different than facts. You can post all you want, but unless you can provide "useful, concrete" information, all we can do is ignore your information as lies, rumors, etc. I have no problem with you posting, "I believe BTIM is going to go to $1". That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. However, if you're going to say the company was out of cash and there's been major dilution without any evidence of this, we have to treat it as a lie (or at best an unsubstantiated rumor, considering the factual data available), especially since you state you hold a short position. You have everything to gain by disseminating this type of information. But that is not the purpose of these forums. I will state that I am long BTIM. But my post is hardly emotional cheerleading. As a shareholder, I welcome opposing viewpoints, but must rely on the available factual data. KJ

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (699)	2/16/1998 10:07:00 AM
From: Jim Roof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1432

<<BTW, one of the little red flags I look for when shorting stocks (besides no sales, no earnings, and little chance of ever obtaining any)....is emotional cheerleading which doesn't tolerate dissenting opinion.>> Again Bill you focus your attack on what is a non-issue. You accuse us of emotional cheerleading but if an objective reader were to visit he would find that we are the one's trying to squeeze YOU for facts - not vice versa. We are responding on this level because it is where you are so easily found. Talk substance with adequate backing and things will be different. Jim