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: Dan O. who wrote (19959)	5/3/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: Flagrante Delictu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

tonyt, OFF TOPIC. I have to agree with Dan O. on this issue. The poster on Yahoo could be who he claims. However, several of his postulates seem beneath the dignity of what I would expect from a scientist of the background he purports to have. Specifically, although LGND's scientific founder of its' intracellular receptor technology, Ronald Evans,PhD. is presumed to know a thing or two about the differences between intracellular receptors & nuclear hormone receptors, if any, this poster cavils about what LGND calls them, preferring his terminology to their's. "...rather idiosyncratically called intracellular receptors by Ligand". Do you really believe that Ronald Evans, discoverer in 1985 of the first new intracellular receptor in 25 years knew less about what to call it than this individual? We know Evans' accomplishments. What do we know about this guy? Let us try to find out something from what he told us. "Even though Dr. Niman has never worked on nuclear hormone receptors, as far as I can tell, he definitely knows a lot about them. I'm sure I am not the first to wonder how he came to what seems to be a rather unusual full time job." I think he told us something about himself with these 2 consecutive sentences. "... as far as I can tell..." He makes a declarative statement about our Henry & then admits he doesn't know if it's true. Could he not have inquired first from Henry, who would appear to be not too difficult to reach, what with his "Links to LGND" website? Is this what one would expect from a self described scientific "expert"? Then, he appears to reveal what really gnaws at him. He" wonders" in the manner of a "Courtney Willfore" about Henry's full time job. Well, I have to tell that I have to wonder about this guy's full time job. Do you really believe a scientist as "expert" and accomplished as this one purports to be would waste his time wondering why Henry chooses to do "what seems to be a rather unusual full time job?" Then, he goes on in the manner of the desperately missed "Courtney" to inform us that Henry is not a balanced observer. My question relates to the balance of what seems to be the resurrection of the dearly departed "Courtney" in the guise of this poster. Can r. peter dale be far behind? Catch the sentence following the one that questions whether Henry is a balanced observer. "I don't know whether he would disagree with this, but I agree with an earlier opinion that there is nothing wrong with it." Here he seems to be saying he agrees there is nothing wrong with Henry's balance of observation. He goes on in the manner of dale/Willfore, "His posts have substance, and he is certainly better than some of the poorly informed enthusiasts who can be found on these boards." Now, is that damning with faint praise or what? Would you really expect that level of pettynesss from the self-appointed "expert" from the Yahoo thread, if he really were a significant scientist? Henry is better than only "some of the poorly informed enthusiasts"? Does any sane person really believe that? " The key as always, is to separate facts from opinions. I suggest an earlier discussion of the value of knowing the precise 3-D structures of the receptors." So, all he wants is an "earlier discussion of the value of knowing the precise 3-D structures of the receptors", which will generate each participants "opinion" but "earlier". And for this he snidely attacks Henry? And you think his is a reasonable & objective post? I don't. More later, if required.