LUMM - Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology Inc.

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
LUMM - Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology Inc.

An SI Board Since February 1999

Posts	SubjectMarks	Bans	Symbol
2484	45	0	LUMM

Emcee: Currency	Type: Unmoderated

Introduction Market Data Compact

Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):

Reply	Message Preview	From	Recs	Posted
1959	Mr. Sherman, I've seen the product in many visits to the plant. I wouldn'	Don Johnstone	-	8/1/2000
1958	but...there is no product -- the emperor has no clothes...	Peter Sherman	-	8/1/2000
1957	That is the core issue...the performance/cost of their products. Dr. Tony Moret	s-words	-	8/1/2000
1956	the core issue is that there is no deliverable - a marketable product -	Peter Sherman	-	8/1/2000
1955	Great sound points S-words. I just wish the con side would present points that d	dds1	-	7/31/2000
1954	Nice turn of phrase, but... Regardless of the various scenarios postulated her	s-words	-	7/31/2000
1953	oblivion beckons...IMHO	Peter Sherman	-	7/31/2000
1952	I don't imagine 35 billion shares are authorized for issuance. That is qui	s-words	-	7/31/2000
1951	An event of default is not the same as the company being worthless. The company	Fred McCutcheon	-	7/31/2000
1950	<<if they are hedged then they are short LUMM anyway, and would profit fro	s-words	-	7/31/2000
1949	Ah, but you forget, if they are hedged then they are short LUMM anyway, and woul	jjs64	-	7/30/2000
1948	castle is not on your side - i am -	Peter Sherman	-	7/30/2000
1947	What's your point in posting here, then. Or are you making like our guardian	Don Johnstone	-	7/30/2000
1946	no - not short - am a value tech investor who tries to evaluate technology as pr	Peter Sherman	-	7/30/2000
1945	That sale of 450k shares by MOLX represents only 1.23% of their holdings of LUMM	manyone	-	7/30/2000
1944	jjs64, haven't you bought any LUMM yet, after me pleading with you so nicely	Don Johnstone	-	7/30/2000
1943	Thanks for the link re DEFAULT. LUMM ain't going to default. ;-) $35M ain&	Don Johnstone	-	7/30/2000
1942	Thanks PR, I get the picture. Perhaps this time, however, Castle/Heights will t	Don Johnstone	-	7/30/2000
1941	<<Does that help?>> In a way, yes. <<Imagine, if you can, that	s-words	-	7/30/2000
1940	Ram: <i>Here we go again!</i> LOL! Yah, really. I tell ya...if I	John Curtis	-	7/30/2000
1939	S-words; I'll try to explain the "standstill" Imagine, if you ca	jjs64	-	7/30/2000
1938	Yankee: Yup, warrants were involved, too, in those aforementioned companies(see	John Curtis	-	7/30/2000
1937	John, Glad to see your eloquent post as usual, telling like it was with VLNC and	P. Ramamoorthy	-	7/30/2000
1936	Don, My first experience with Castle Creek's MO was in VLNC and WSTL invest	P. Ramamoorthy	-	7/30/2000
1935	John, Thanks so much for your warnings about the sharks, excuse me...I mean Cast	Yankee Trader	-	7/30/2000

Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):