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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Fonar - Where is it going? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James L. Fleckenstein who wrote (10693)	8/5/1998 12:31:00 PM
From: daveG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19354

Jim, are you saying it now costs more ($annually) to maintain a new Fonar magnet than a new OPART?

To: James L. Fleckenstein who wrote (10693)	8/5/1998 12:41:00 PM
From: Patricia L. Clews	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19354

Dr. F, Dave, & all, I know we all appreciate civil discussion of the company. I like learning something new. I too want to hear the truth though & when someone states misinformation, I'm concerned about their motive. That said, I don't mean you Dr. I've seen Fonar's newest mri called bogus and that's a real pain in the ** to see. I can't figure it out. Hmmm... Also I saw where the co hasn't based their mri's on the cancer patent for a long time & that I can't figure out. I have seen info that was a legal brief which said that the Beta 3000 was based on the cancer patent. The Ultimate series replaced the Beta 3000 in 1990 so let's assume that till then Fonar was basing their mri scanners on the cancer patent. That patent ran out in 1992. I'm only mentioning this because the subject was brought up. Please don't ask me what a MRI, OPEN, or Beta 3000 is, you know who you are, that's dumb. Dr. F I don't mean you. Patti

To: James L. Fleckenstein who wrote (10693)	8/5/1998 12:45:00 PM
From: Michelino	Respond to of 19354

I just don't see why we can't argue without resorting to accusations of lying. Some seem to prefer to have just one party line without dissenting opinions. I am not in that crowd. The truth is clearly in between or the stock price would not be where it is. I am also in that crowd. I have often appreciated the frank and open contributions from such posters as Zeev Hed and yourself even (and especially) when the information challenges the status quo here. But grossly inaccurate 'legends' should be openly challenged and disposed with. When we find that a source issues repeated distortions, I think caution is mandated. I suggested independent verification of such sources, not rejection a priori. Whether stock prices are always a reflection of "truth" is a matter for another discussion. Regards, Michael