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: Gurupup who wrote (4001)	7/9/1998 2:21:00 AM
From: Alan Lee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5736

<< Schoenberg ... was guilty of buying something that he believed in >> Do you really think a fund manager would buy a stock (even for himself) because he "believed in it?" I think he bought it because he thought he could make money on it, which he no doubt did. << Dreyfus got kicked in the ass for making their shareholders money >> Both of the Dreyfus funds who bought CCSI lost money in the last year. << CCSI was up where it was on people's expectations, and hopes ... >> Now that I agree with completely.

To: Gurupup who wrote (4001)	7/9/1998 10:57:00 AM
From: Ron Harvey	Respond to of 5736

<<. . . and have been subjected to some real dirty comments from some of you low lives.>> Just a second now! Let's not be insulting the low lifes on this board by calling them low lives. And what's wrong with a guilty-until-proven-innocent standard as applied to Chromatics? Paraguay made it work. Almost.

To: Gurupup who wrote (4001)	7/9/1998 12:34:00 PM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5736

I can understand why you responded to my post, Skip, since I am practically the only one posting lately. I have never accused you of anything, nor have I ever responded to any of your posts. But here are a couple of points in response to your post to me: <<What in the hell does Dreyfus and its holdings have to do with CCSI's business?>> The media and Asensio have connected CCSI and Dreyfus. Schonberg has been mentioned numerous times by posters, both long and short. Therefore, news releases mentioning Schonberg alone, Dreyfus alone, or Schonberg, Dreyfus, and CCSI together, are relevant to this thread's discussion. I don't intend to stick my head in the sand and ignore them. I didn't draw conclusions from the news releases, I just posted them. <<Despite what a lot of you say, CCSI was up where it was on people's expectations, and hopes for a new medical device that can really make a difference. Medical experts are frauds, everyone is a liar, people are criminals. . . . It is a real crime when people on this board can call others criminals, liars, cheats, and have no accountability.>> I never accused anyone of fraud, lying, or criminal behavior. I can accept your post to be directed to others on this thread, and I assume it is not directed at me. <<I have a very low threshold for strict BS, and innuendo, and reptition of the same old, same old.>> My latest posts have been about press releases and news items. I can't help what the press continues to print, but a news release that indicates Schonberg and Dreyfus are being sued by their fundholders is a "new" event, and is especially relevant when it mentions CCSI. Innuendo flies both ways on this thread. I try not to engage in it. Repetition of the same old points occurs on every thread, and will continue here. I expect to hear: "the deal is coming" and "Asensio is correct and you are all victims of CCSI's manipulation" (or variations thereof) for a long time to come. <<Now to my point. . . . When they have a partner, what will happen then? Helping babies will be bad, establishing a new market with their Tlc-BiliTest will be a fraud, babies don't need it, parents don't want it, insurance companies won't pay for it, the sky is falling.>> A discussion of the potential market for the device is critical to determining whether CCSI is a good investment. Whether insurance companies will pay for it has an impact on that market, as do a lot of other considerations. To ignore such considerations is poor DD. I don't recall anyone saying that a device which helps babies is a bad idea, but rather that this device may not have the market that CCSI claims it does (I did not say this, but others have). <<Might I ask even the shorts a few questions, perhaps to be answered with a small degree of fairness?>> I still hold no position in CCSI, so maybe the shorts can answer you. I post here because it's been quite entertaining, and a good case study. I hope I have been fair in my responses to you here.