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: Flagrante Delictu who wrote (19961)	5/3/1998 2:19:00 PM
From: tonyt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

Dan's comment was "Please. Good post? Someone anonymous poster claims we should separate fact from opinion, and then gives us his opinion. (please enter your favorite expletive here)". What I get from this is that as this message was posted anonymously we should not listen to his opinion -- Well, then ignore everything you read on SI as we have no assurance that anyone is who they say they are. His comment that "The second is that he is definitely not 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. His posts have substance, and he is certainly better than some of the poorly informed enthusiasts who can be found on these boards." seems valid to me, but not to others who have commented on this message. Your comment that " My question relates to the balance of what seems to be the resurrection of the dearly departed "Courtney" in the guise of this poster." is an unusual one as it appears that you feel that there can only be one person who could ever post what can be construed to be a negative comment about henry. I guess if there is more than one than it must be a conspiricy (sp?). You also state that "However, several of his postulates seem beneath the dignity of what I would expect from a scientist of the background he purports to have." Well, one could make the same claim about posters here who state as fact how NASDAQ works when it is clear that they don't have a clue. You do understand how NASDAQ works, however, when you attempted to set the record straight, he chose to ignore you and continued to profess about 'swaps' (to be fair, 20 posts later, in an unrelated post, we always get the disclaimer that finance is not his field). You also state that "Could he not have inquired first from Henry, who would appear to be not too difficult to reach", but as hneiman posts on yahoo, he appears to be giving henry a forum to respond. You, on the other hand have stated that " several of his postulates seem beneath the dignity of what I would expect from a scientist of the background he purports to have. ", yet you make that comment in a forum seperate from where the post originated. You also could have inquired of him on yahoo which is not difficult to reach. You make valid commennst on his yahoo post, yet as with blujeens, you appear to feel that it is necessary to find ulterior (sp?) motives -- Well, at least I haven't read (yet) that I'm the yahoo poster :-)