Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Here's another informative article about SARS:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/24/1050777363641.html
SARS could be worse than AIDS: expert
April 25 2003
The SARS virus could turn out to be more devastating than AIDS, a British health expert has warned.
Dr Patrick Dixon, an AIDS and global trends specialist at the London Business School, warned that, on current trends, there could be one billion cases of SARS within 60 weeks.
Comparing it to the flu pandemic of 1918-1919 that killed 30 million people, Dr Dixon called for urgent action before SARS killed tens of millions of people.
"We are in an urgent race to prevent a global SARS catastrophe, with cases doubling every two weeks and a 25 per cent chance that we are already too late to stop uncontrolled, explosive spread, possibly leading to many tens of millions of deaths," Dr Dixon told British newspaper the Daily Express.
"This is not a yuppie disease contracted by air travellers. That is a pathetic reaction that will put the whole world at risk."
AIDS had infected 80 million people over the past 15 to 20 years, but SARS was more easily spread, he said.
"AIDS spreads slowly. But this is different, we don't have the time. This is a far more serious epidemic potentially than AIDS," he said.
SARS has killed at least 252 people and infected nearly 4300 in 25 countries since November 16.
Once
Your brother hangs out here? Can you share his alias with us?
I would like to congratulate him on his pending marriage even though you make it sound like a terrible thing. His music request makes me think this wedding may be a little ominous actually, hope I am misinterpreting!
Once
Thank-you Matt, I appreciate it. We can only beat a dead horse so much!
Once
Bulldzr, you are seriously misguided. I have never in my life denied that I posted as Bux at SI! Why would I?
As far as hating IDCC, that is your own wrong-headed opinion. Yes, my perspective on IDCC is not nearly as bullish as yours. Does that mean I "hate" IDCC? Of course not!
Now let's try to get along and not waste our time discussing meaningless things.
Once
Akvetch, what a coincidence! Out last two posts were just moments from each other yet we both said essentially the same thing (but in our own words). I guess that says something!
Cheers!
Once
Bulldzr, I know we don't see eye to eye on IDCC, you think it's going to make you rich any minute, I think it's a high risk stock that has a below average chance of out-performing the market. But that's no reason to turn it personal. Matt and Bob have worked hard to build a place where we could all get along and not spend all day at each other's throats. Let's just sit back and mellow a bit, eh?
Tomorrow is another day.
Once
Let it lie Bulldzr, let it lie. You attempt to create a mountain of a molehill. It's a closed issue.
Once
Interesting perspective Ziploc. You discuss the "bubbling forth" of the optimistic Conference Call of 3/17 and then the insider sales in the following two weeks, but you fail to make the connection between the two.
Is it at all possible that the bubbly optimism of 3/27 was to facilitate the profitable sales in the following two weeks? You then conclude with "I will admit though that I am puzzled by these insider sales."
Hmmmm.........Not too puzzling as long as you remember that IDCC insiders will always be more intimate with the details of their future prospects than any outsider could ever hope to be.
That's not speculation, it's just common sense.
Once
Good observation. I was beginning to think everyone had entered Never Never Land.
Once
Now it's time for a brief word from one of our sponsors...
[Suppressed Sound Link]
Once
This one goes out to all the self-confessed rednecks in America. Ain't freedom grand....
[Suppressed Sound Link]
Enjoy!
Once
What is the sound one hears before the one-eyed snake wakes up?
Give up?
[Suppressed Sound Link]
[Suppressed Sound Link]
Once
Oh yes, that helped a lot. I feel better already!
Once
That's interesting Witch! I can see how that would threaten a few wheel builders if it is a precision instrument. I bet the top wheel builders will tell you that it can't compete with their work, LOL!
Once
You will have better luck with the SS ones. Still, SS is susceptible to crevice corrosion so you might want to inspect them once in a while because it's not much of a cosmetic problem but it does weaken the spokes. If it's not a racing wheel it's probably over-engineered anyway.
Are you lacing them up yourself?
Once
The power of the dark side is over-rated.
Once
LOL! I don't respond very well to threats, especially violent ones.
Once
No, I believe it is "A little poetry, a little dance, a little soda, your pants go down"
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum
Less brains, less balls, less booty, your pants fall down? Is that right?
Once
LOL! I knew there was a conspiracy involved!
Once
Chris, Chromium is not as ductile as steel and spokes are under a lot of tension in actual use. So the corrosion on the spokes is caused by small stress cracks in the chrome which provides a place for corrosion to take hold. Waxing the spokes after the spokes have been run in and re-trued can help alleviate this in the future as well as avoiding caustic wheel cleaning solution which can strip the metal of natural protection that builds up over time and accelerates rust.
I hope this helps.
Once
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.
Once
Greg, I stand behind those posts, they are honest and that forum was created specifically for discussing the differences between iHub and Silicon Investor so I don't need to be ashamed of that.
Shame on you for saying otherwise. Did Matt encourage you and Phil to step in and try to rile me or do you just naturally follow him around and defend him while attacking anyone who speaks their honest opinion.
Once
Phil, I'm hurt that you would insult me like that. Get a life? What have I ever done to you? Why do you think I "hate" IDCC? That's a pretty strong allegation. It's true I don't believe they are one of the most upstanding examples of innovation but my participation is towards countering some of the misinformation that is passed off as fact and providing logical perspectives that people can consider while pointing out the parts that don't make sense of the "dream" perspectives produced by a few leaders.
And why do you say I'm in love with Qualcomm? That's ridiculous, I don't even follow the company except in the most cursory manner, haven't for years.
Please don't try to stir up the pot in here with Qualcomm vs. IDCC rhetoric.
Once
Dood, can you play some soothing music or something? That support call started to fray the ends of my nerves.
Ouch!
Once
IMO, without a doubt!
"F6 In your opion then, are all the options management has insurance against a friendly takeover?"
Yes Nessco, those options will not automatically go away if someone wanted to buy out the company and they are not worth a bloody penny to anyone except to the insiders who own them. You had better believe that anyone who wanted to buy the company would have to consider them. Of course that alone wouldn't STOP a take-over, but there are plenty of other things to accomplish that, IMO.
Once
I can't believe you don't just drop this. The people already have spoken and I've heard mixed opinions. In my opinion you are just stirring the pot and trying to stir up dissent. It's not even relevant to iHub and yet you continue to drag it over here. Why don't you just drop it? It's really not as big a deal as you make it out to be.
Once
I don't object if you discuss options and call them options but for Art to call me a liar and then call "options" "shares", well that's just plain dishonest.
And if management is really building up options in the amounts you posted, I find that disgusting.
Once
Postyle, sorry you have a basic misunderstanding:
"Art says they did not sell over half their holdings"
Actually, I was the one that claimed several IDCC insiders sold over half of their shares. Art called me a liar.
I provided the numbers of shares sold/shares remaining to prove that I wasn't lying. Now you and Art are trying to confuse the issue by dragging options into the picture.
Talk about dishonest!
Once
Art, you will have to read more carefully:
"0nce...if anyone would publish the 2002 idcc proxy page 20 it lists all the options OWNED by 15 insiders...total 3,470,517 shares..Lemmo alone had 260,318 shares.."
Nope. Those are options, not shares. They do not become shares that are owned by the insiders until the options are exercised. Some never are.
No big deal, I've seen lots of IDCC'ers make that same mistake.
In any case, the discussion was clearly about several IDCC insiders selling off more than half of their shares. I provided the dates and amounts and those numbers have not been contested. You are just trying to murk up the issue by dragging unexercised options into the picture. Here's the facts:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=954063
Once
Good suggestion except for two small details:
"I would suggest that you tell them to take it to the IDCC board or jail them all."
1) This "discussion" was started on the IDCC board. Matt deleted my response on the IDCC board but not before he copied it into his post, chopped it up and started the "discussion" over here. He should have just dropped it, IMO. Here's his post:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=952892
2) Matt started this board. I would think he would know what is appropriate and what is not.
Personally, I can't see what the big deal is or why he dragged it over here in the first place.
Once
Forget it Ed, you will never understand because you don't want to.
Once
AK, I think you may have been misled:
"My off-hand opinion, not being part of the original list creation, is pretty simple. If everybody was cross-sending e-mails, then it would be apparent that everyone had that understanding. Since you seem to be the only one, then it would seem that all (most?) expected that there would not be cross-sending."
Nobody is sending any messages yet because nobody has come across anything suitable. So far, Jim has just sent out the initial list to everyone and I sent a courtesy e-mail letting people know they could opt out of my e-mails if they desired. I can see now that was a mistake.
I appreciate your thoughts and the fact that you remain civil to the extreme but I'm getting a little frustrated that the events continue to be misconstrued (sometimes simply out of misunderstanding but others out of spite) On top of all this, it didn't even happen on iHub!
But I like your logical voice of reason and hope you won't hold this against me.
Once
Art, this year Mark Lemmo sold over 40,000 IDCC shares and is left with only 29,407 shares. I would say he sold more than half.
On 3/20 William Merrit sold 35,000 shares and was left with only 29,757 at the end of the month. I would say he sold more than half.
On 3/27 Rip Tilden sold 68,669 shares and was left with only 32,091 shares by the end of the month. I would say he sold more than half.
Why do you tell me to tell the truth when I'm the one bringing the facts to the table and you are the one calling me a liar. My facts are easily verified at the SEC Edgar archives.
Once
AVKetch, that's exactly how any e-mail list I've ever joined worked:
"You apparently think that the several hundred people on that list can now use it to cross-send e-mails to each other?
Do you think it would be wise to have one person providing all the information to the whole group?
Once
Ed, it would be my last message if you wouldn't keep twisting the truth:
"Again, Jim said the purpose of the list was strictly for the purpose of sending reports when they are available. It just doesn't get clearer than that."
That is a complete fabrication! Jim never said that. He said he created a new e-mail address to use for the list. Big difference!
Once
Art, everyone sees it differently but to me the difference between the Qualcomm insider sells and IDCC's is that the Q insiders were not selling off over half of their holdings!
The fact that some of the IDCC insiders have does not show confidence no matter how many new options are "in the mail". In fact, if the insiders thought the shares were going to explode in price their new options could get issued at a strike price that was too high to make them worth much (or anything if the price declined a bit after issuance).
Once
Ed, this is my last message to you on this subject:
"I created a new e-mail address strictly for the purpose of sending reports when they are available."
That is something Jim did on his end. It's obvious he didn't want the list e-mail getting mixed up with his regular e-mail but it certainly doesn't indicate the list was to be non-participatory in nature.
Jim is no more likely to get IDCC information than anyone else. He is not an insider! The fact that I am the only person to use the list so far (other than jim to send the list out) is because I am the only one who thought it wise to allow others to opt-out from my e-mails. I did this as a courtesy. It's not unusual that no one has any new IDCC info yet, sometimes IDCC goes months without news. I guess my mistake was offering to allow others to opt out at all.
Once
Let me get this straight: You thought you were signing up for a one-way e-mail list? Every e-mail list I've ever participated in was completely open, any list member could contribute. I believe Matt used to participate some e-mail investing lists. I doubt if those were one-way lists.
And to clarify, I'm not trying to take credit for the work Jim did in making it all come together, he volunteered and I'm glad he did. I'm just saying we all contributed our addresses so he could compile them in one list.
Maybe those who believe I shouldn't be allowed to participate in the group should just start your own list and exclude me and be done with it instead of trying to make me the bad guy.
Once
Ed, I am going out of my way to respect peoples privacy, that's why my first e-mail was to allow those who can't control themselves to opt out. I'm trying to make this work but I'm not about to totally exclude myself from the list just because a few can't stand my perspectives. What is it about this you can't understand?
Once
AKvetch, there is nothing wrong with creating an opt-in list except that it's just a lot of extra work for nothing. We have already put in a group effort to create the list for those who are interested in receiving IDCC related stuff via our e-mail list and now that all the names have been collected and Jim has distributed it some of the members don't like the fact that I'm a part of it. Never mind that I'm not the one who sent the virus, the uproar is because I point out the other side of IDCC that some would prefer to overlook. No one would complain if an IDCC bull sent out an e-mail with happy, warm IDCC fuzzies, that's what the list is for. Ask Matt, he has been a member of more than one stock e-mail list and you can bet he didn't just sit at the top and pass out the information to all the sheep at the receiving end. What kind of e-mail list would that be?
And I will emphasize that you are only hearing the vocal minority complaining, most of the IDCC'ers are happy to hear my perspectives. I know this so I just try to ignore the complainers but sometimes others will actually start believing what they are saying which is why I even bother to come over here and correct the record.
The reason I'm not going to the trouble to make a separate opt-in list is because I don't think I should be treated differently from all the IDCC bulls just because my perspectives are not as bullish. Everybody on the list already opted in.
But I agree, we have wasted WAY too much energy on this when no one has even been harmed. It's all about trying to silence my perspectives.
Once