% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

MEDIS TECH LTD Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • sunfundasst sunfundasst Nov 13, 2003 11:31 AM Flag

    Who will be correct?

    For the most part your negative views are stated fairly although they are somewhat repetitive. I have not read all of your items. Nevertheless, you have an impact on my views.

    Your Redstone commentary, in my opinion, is unreasonable. Redstone may be in error, but he has done nothing that I know of which justifies handcuffs. You are a lawyer. You know what is criminal and what is not.

    If you have credible evidence of a crime please state it. If not, please be more constrained.

    This time you seem to me to be libelous

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • To describe Charlie as "...somewhat repetitious..." is akin to descibing the Pacific ocean as a thing that is 'damp'.

      He may or may not be a lawyer. Surely you don't take representations such as that, on a message board, at their face value?

      Sorry I called you Shirley . . .

    • In a sense DR is offtopic -- except to the extent his comments pump MDTL.

      But you've asked me to back up my comment, which is fair enough. I've already provided the dots, but let me put 3 of them in one place and connect them:

      [1] Redstone has a big investment in MDTL. It is his "biggest play".

      [2] Redstone is an MDTL insider, or deliberately gives the impression that he is. For example, he claimed online that the RWA deal is dead, and with it MDTL's hopes of an Asian partner -- something MDTL never reported. Ditto the fact that the Sagem deal is "moribund", which he claimed before MDTL hinted that anywhere.

      [3] Redstone uses his newsletter and quotes in published articles and interviews to spread statements about MDTL that are untrue, and that HE MUST KNOW ARE UNTRUE. Examples: the claim that MDTL has 100% eliminated platinum that gives it a big advantage, and most humorously, that MDTL has "never failed" on its promises (truth: it NEVER honors them).

      As I've said here before, I see two possible conclusions from this:

      1. Redstone is simply a dupe -- gulled into believing MDTL is unique and superior. He doesn't know the long history of PEM-less fuel cells, which reveals MDTL is puffing an old idea that Toshiba, NEC, Motorola and other real companies rejected knowingly and smartly.


      2. Redstone is working cooperative and knowingly with Lifton in a scheme to pump MDTL's stock price -- which would be a crime.

      When I connect the dots, I come up with #2.

      I just don't think Redstone is dumb enough to honestly make the crazy statements he makes about MDTL. I also note that when caught in a blatant lie, he pleads (repeatedly, for multiple articles) that he was "misquoted" -- but he doesn't bother to correct the mistake by asking the magazine to print a retraction.

      My faith in #2 is strengthened by my communications with former MDTL employees -- I think the company really is a scam in the criminal sense; only an extremely cynical scam hoping that some prototype it has in a back room (and that it never expects really to work) will save it.

      That it NEVER EXPECTS TO WORK -- that is the key. This is public shell, a name on the door in New York on which to hang fantastic press releases about cancer treatments and batteries and fuel cells and motors and surgery tools. It's funny, really, except for the shareholders who get tricked by it.

      But #1, the only other alternative I see, also doesn't say much for Redstone or MDTL.

      As to libel, if there's anyone here who has rights to complain it's me. Notice I don't complain. But I don't leave either, and I don't stop.

      Redstone earned me.

      So has MDTL.

      - Charles