SI
SI
discoversearch

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
GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold
An SI Board Since January 1999
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
5582 39 0 MTXX
Emcee:  StockDung Type:  Unmoderated
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
3982"Ha ha ha ha...You do serve something of a purpose as comic relief. " Hank-11/8/2001
3981Ha ha ha ha...You do serve something of a purpose as comic relief. One might Mike M-11/7/2001
3980Pardon me for neglecting to use the word "legitimate" in our original Hank-11/7/2001
3979Oh come on Hank. Didn't your psychiatrist tell you time and again not to prMike M-11/6/2001
3978"He predicated his bet that there never would be any profit because there nHank-11/6/2001
3977Oh golly gee Mikey! Such vituperation! Why so hostile all of a sudden? Did yoHank-11/6/2001
3976Who knew and, more importantly, who cares? He still would have lost the bet. HMike M-11/6/2001
3975I didn't say that Swedish Match didn't want out of the joint venture. IDanZ-11/6/2001
3974<i>It isn't that Swedish Match wants out like you purport.</i> Mark Marcellus-11/5/2001
3973And it is equally obvious that Hank did not mean to include one-time gains from Kevin Podsiadlik-11/5/2001
3972It's obvious that I meant that he doesn't represent Gum Tech. Do you haDanZ-11/5/2001
3971<< a Shareholder that has no connection to the company >> An intereKevin Podsiadlik-11/5/2001
3970And your point is? The person that wrote that was a Shareholder that has no conDanZ-11/5/2001
3969HeadLine News for the History of ManKind ! ZICAM eliminates the Common Cold in 1StockDung-11/5/2001
3968Well, Mark. I wrote that message over a year ago. Things change in business quDanZ-11/5/2001
3967So Pomper spoofed while trading GUMM. He probably spoofed while trading umpteenDanZ-11/5/2001
3966Sure Hank you're credible. Perhaps as Billy's butt wipe. That would abMike M-11/5/2001
3965<i>It's so obvious, isn't it Mark? </i> Here's another Mark Marcellus-11/5/2001
3964About the only thing not credible here is your insistence that you know what youHank-11/5/2001
3963GUMM GETS SPOOFERED, AHCHOO->SEC FILES SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ROStockDung-11/5/2001
3962Really! See, Hank didn't caveat that bet with a, "What I meant was....Mike M-11/5/2001
3961It's so obvious, isn't it Mark? Have you ever seen a business sell for DanZ-11/5/2001
3960I believe that Hank was talking about an operating profit, not a one time gain oMark Marcellus-11/5/2001
3959Hank are you really that ignorant? This year is a lock for a gain. GUMM just sMike M-11/4/2001
3958That's true. This stock has failed you miserably as an investment and that Hank-11/4/2001
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):