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.

Technology Stocks : Silkroad -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GrokSoup who wrote (348)	4/15/1999 5:00:00 PM
From: Kachina	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 626

All of which is, in some sense a restatement of the misgivings many have expressed here. I find it difficult when all the scientific minds I know can't figure out what they are really saying, and say something along those lines. My brother got back to me saying that the optics guy he ran it past at his lab (Max Planck - hardly a second rate bunch) just said it wasn't worth his time. So, we are between a couple of rocks. The one scientist I know of who seems to support it, (outside of the company) is ahahaa who has posted on this thread. And while he seems a nice guy, he can't really do much except restate what they have in their patent and talk about what he doesn't understand. It was this perception that aroused my deepest suspicions in the first place. And while it seems that they have something going on with UC SD and they have people at that facility that have a positive view of what they are doing, and like them, one is still left in the end (at this point) with a kind of vague bundle of loose ends. Who knows - it could still be a con, albeit of a very advanced type. I am not saying that it is, but stranger things have happened. And as someone said elsewhere, it is doubtful that any jury could be convinced that there was not legitimate intent. Things that remain this muddy after pretty detailed investigation by knowledgeable people - well ... What would be interesting is to see what kind of clarification and rebuttal the Silkroad folks would give, and how it would work out. Just because someone is a professor or a highly experienced expert in an area doesn't mean they can't miss something. I have had the experience of having a paper responded to that I had written, and it was clear that the reviewer just didn't get it. We were able to clarify things. But it took some work. Anything new tends to be difficult to follow for minds in old grooves. So - the jury is out. It really does seem to be that for an analysis that has more meaning it will take getting the principals together in a room to hash it all out. Anything short of that is likely to be just more shilly-shally if you ask me.

To: GrokSoup who wrote (348)	4/19/1999 5:58:00 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 626

What "central research paper" did the photonics expert study? His response does raise some important questions, but leads me to question what paper it was, when it was given to you, and most importantly, why it was given to you. Not trying to sound too nosey, but very curious about the type of paper it is, and the reasons for handing it out. Don't feel the DQ report or the white papers would qualify as "central research papers". If the information that is truly at the core of their idea is bogus, that would be a big disappointment. Also, I was not being facetious earlier when I said it would be good if some smart guys on the thread went to one of the speaking engagements to see what's up. Just couldn't come up with an eloquent way of saying it, and no offense was intended to you or anyone else. I did check with SR on this subject because I wanted to attend the event in San Francisco. They said sure, for $1,495 (or whatever the cost of the seminar is). Told them I didn't want to go that bad.