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 : Chromatics Color Sciences International. Inc; CCSI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (3129)	6/14/1998 2:06:00 PM
From: Manfred	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5736

First, let me tell you that I am long ccsi since last year. Normally, I would have to thank Asensio for giving me the opportunity to buy at these prices. But he has ruined a lot of good people. Never will I forgive him that and he will pay for it. I have read the Asensio reports and the company's replies. Everyone with an open mind sees that Asensio (who seems to be convicted of fraud !) made a lot of mistakes and false allegations. He is nothing but a liar. Will he reply on ccsi's rebuttal? I am waiting. I hope he has something better, otherwise it will be his last battle. He attacked the Dreyfus fund where many Americans put their hard-earned money. The SEC will verify this, you can be sure. But I am interested in ccsi. What has changed? I have done my DD, believe me, and I can only LOL about this BS report from Asensio. Even a moron can imagine that the bilirubin MONITORING market is MUCH bigger than the 2,5 mil Asensio claims (he meant the current blood analyzing devices, which have nothing to do with ccsi's device which uses disposables). But read ccsi's rebuttal. Now, many people come here and say "wow, this company has not sold a single device". LOL. Everyone KNOWS this. What an argument. Of course ccsi has not sold a single device since they are still negotiating with an international distributor. So please don't tell me what I already know. And although I know this, I am still very long and even buying more. Tell me something new if you can. Can you? And please, don't reply by telling me that Asensio was right on other stocks. Each stock has another story. So stick to this one. Or should I mention the lawsuit Asensio lost against Norman E. Murphy? Manfred

To: Mama Bear who wrote (3129)	6/14/1998 2:59:00 PM
From: Quad Sevens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5736

<< I've read the same things on threads of companies of which he's been proven 100% correct in his assertions. I expect it is more likely than not that Asensio's assertions about CCSI are true, and will be proven true in the fullness of time. >> Barbara: I and others have already proved, with mathematical certainty, that Asensio is not 100% correct in his assertions. Just to review two instances: 1. He confused the bilirubin monitoring market with the market for instruments that measure bilirubin in the blood. This is a fact. There is no discussion. 2. He claimed that CCSI's device is no better that one from the 1950s. The latter device requires visual assessment of the physician. The conclusion of the FDA was that CCSI's device is far superior to visual assessment. This is a fact; there is no discussion. I repeat: There is no chance that Asensio can be proven 100% correct in his assertions. You can argue it doesn't matter, he's got the right big picture, he's got a 6th sense for these situations, there will be no market for the product, he's got the track record on short sales, etc. But even if all of that is true, your 100% statement is demonstrably false. I'm trying to understand your point of view. Let's make some progress here. Wade

To: Mama Bear who wrote (3129)	6/15/1998 12:29:00 AM
From: Brian P.	Respond to of 5736

<< Please don't try that moral high ground lecture,>> I have already tried it, with success--you can't answer it coherently because you have no defensible answer. << and this garbage that Asensio has such a callous disregard for the truth. >> His disregard appears less callous than finely calculated. Calling my observation "garbage" won't make it any less true, I'm afraid. I expect it is more likely than not that Asensio's assertions about CCSI are true, and will be proven true in the fullness of time. >> I doubt that they will be proven true and I doubt even more that you fully believe that yourself. But even so, your response merely begs the question of whether he at this time is spreading calculated distortions about CCSI. For if his rash assertions--already appearing demonstrably at odds in important particulars with the known facts--were to turn out to exquisitely match the truth at some point in the future (unlikely to say the least) it would be due merely to his perverse luck, not to any careful search for the truth. If you really want to pretend that you think Asensio is a responsible investigator who cares for the truth (come off it: I simply don't believe for a moment that you really believe this) then I think you merely show your Asensio-like colors. << As far as the frequency of my posting, that really is a red herring you toss out, and has nothing to to with the facts concerning CCSI. >> My post was not about the facts concerning CCSI, it was about the facts concerning you. So my observation was not at all a red herring. Your sudden anxiousness to return to "the facts concerning CCSI" is the red herring.