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: Rudy Saucillo who wrote (22780)	6/27/1998 9:36:00 PM
From: Flagrante Delictu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32384

Rudy, >> A serious question... In your opinion is Murphy credible simply because he likes LGND or because you're impressed with his performance and tactics? << My opinion of Murphy's credibility is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is your allegation that he has "an utter lack of credibility" , which allegation remains unsubstantiated by you as late as this very moment. You claim that Hulbert rates his performance as the worst of all those he follows, but you refuse to back that up with a specific reference. For what period of time does Hulbert claim Murphy has been the worst of all the prognosticators that Hulbert follows? Why won't you give us a specific reference? I noticed that when Celeryroot asked you how you calculated the book value of some penny stock, you also dodged her by saying you were"simply citing the value from their most recent 10Q. The value is given & the calculation is straightforward from the balance sheet data." If the value is given & the calculation straightforward, why were you unwilling to provide it? In your first post here on LGND, you told us that Murphy had an "utter lack of credibility". And you failed to show proof of that to us. In your most recent post #22779, you claim," there was nothing sensational about my comments". I beg to disagree. I did notice in #22779 a reduction in the charges against Murphy from an "utter lack of credibility" to "Murphy is simply not a credible stock analyst". But that reduction was followed by the inclusion of new charges. "His performance is a matter of public record and it's horrible". "He's also well known for attempting to manipulate the market by publishing blatantly incorrect info to cover his losses. This is well known." "He's not followed by professional investors except as a possible contrary indicator ( as I suggested in my original post)". And once again these sensational charges against Murphy are not backed up by any evidence. Until you provide credible proof of these charges, I would suggest that you cease defiling this thread with your unfair behavior & return to your old haunting grounds. If you do provide the proof, I'll be among the first to welcome you here.