posted
He's not upset with you. He's trying to give you some very good advice.
He's trying to tell you that based on the questions your asking, it is obvious you are too new to trading to thoroughly understand it's "nooks and crannies".
You do not want to learn how to do this by actually doing it, unless you are completely prepared to lose everything you use to trade.
So, he is recommending, first and foremost, learning all you can by reading, studying, watching and paper trading, when you think you've learned enough, you've just started, do some more.
neona, if I told you what to do Monday based on the the most educated guess I could summon... what if I was wrong?
That's right, you would blame me.
People do not want to carry that responsibility. At least most people do not. The ones that will, well their motives become immediately questionable. People will however, feel free to state what THEY are going to do, then it is up to you to decide if that's a good idea or not. See?
Never trade with money you cannot afford to lose neona, it is the first, golden rule of trading.
IP: Logged |
posted
Critic Alleges Deceit in Study On Stem Cells Report's Basic Facts Are Unchallenged
By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, August 26, 2006; Page A02
A landmark scientific report that was supposed to bridge the gap between proponents and opponents of human embryonic stem cell research has become the focus of an escalating feud, with a prominent critic of the research alleging that scientists were deceptive in presenting their results.
At issue is a series of experiments described in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, in which scientists at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in Worcester, Mass., described a method for making stem cells without harming a human embryo. The basic facts of the report remain unchallenged.
In Depth
votes database Legislative Debate How Congress voted on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. Special Report
Follow advances in stem cell research and learn who the key players are.
• Timeline of Stem Cell Debate • The Debate: Legislative Coverage • Stem Cell Legislation by State
» MORE ON STEM CELL RESEARCH RSS Special Report Feed
* Stem Cell Debate
Who's ****ging? Read what ****gers are saying about this article.
* My-RSS - Sony consumer electronics * Copy Paper * Avant News - Deadpan satire from plausible futures - Avant News
Full List of ****s (6 links) »
Most ****ged About Articles On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Save & Share
* Tag This Article
Saving options 1. Save to description: Headline (required) Subheadline Byline 2. Save to notes (255 character max): Subheadline Blurb None 3. Tag This Article
But in an unusual move yesterday, Nature corrected wording in a lay-language news release it had distributed in advance and posted clarifying data it had asked the scientists to provide.
At the core of the battle is a widely distributed e-mail from Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who raised three issues.
First, he said the scientists did not make it clear that no embryos survived their experiments. In fact, data in the paper do make that clear, but Nature's initial release said otherwise. It is well established that a single cell can be removed from an eight-cell human embryo without causing any apparent harm to the embryo, and the new report aimed only to show that such single cells can become stem cells, lead researcher Robert Lanza said yesterday. In the experiments, the scientists took as many cells as they could from each embryo, destroying them in the process, to make the most of the embryos donated for their study.
Doerflinger said it was also deceptive for the scientists to say that single embryo cells were coaxed to grow into colonies of stem cells. In the experiment, he noted, those single cells were allowed to feed on hormones secreted by other cells in the nutrient media in which they were grown. That leaves open the question, he said, of whether a single cell can become a colony on its own.
Lanza responded that the need for hormones from surrounding cells can easily be met by culturing the single cell with laboratory cells or even the remaining, seven-cell embryo for a day, after which experiments indicate the single cells can be weaned and grow into stem cells alone.
A third point of contention is the fact that the published report includes a photo of a mature embryo, healthy and poised to grow into a fetus after having survived the removal of a single cell. Doerflinger said the photo is deceptive because no embryos in the experiment were allowed to develop that far.
Lanza said that the team first did those experiments to prove embryos could survive the biopsy process but that only the photo -- and not the data -- was included because that was not the point of the paper. Data from those earlier experiments were added to Nature's Web site yesterday.
In his e-mail, Doerflinger said the use of the photo in a paper describing research in which no embryos survived was reminiscent of the fraud case that brought down South Korean stem cell researcher Hwang Woo Suk early this year.
Lanza said the criticism is a sign of how politicized stem cell research has become.
"They're really going after everything they can," Lanza said. "They've got the whole machine geared up."
-------------------- Gagged n Burried!!!
IP: Logged |
Quote: On August 24, 2006, the Company agreed to reduce the exercise price of its outstanding warrants to purchase shares of its common stock issued September 15, 2005 (the “Existing Warrants”) from the original exercise price of $2.53 per share to $0.95 for a period beginning at 8:30 a.m. EST on August 25, 2006, and continuing until 5:00 p.m. EST on August 28, 2006 (the “Repricing Term”), provided that a minimum of 85% of the holders of the Existing Warrants exercise the Existing Warrants as repriced. Upon expiration of the Repricing Term, the exercise price of the Existing Warrants will immediately be restored to $2.53 per share. The Company anticipates the receipt of approximately $5,000,000 from the exercise of the Existing Warrants.
================================================= Would you help me with this one, please? Does that mean that after 5:00 p.m. EST on August 28, 2006, after the expiration of the Repricing Term, the price of the STOCK will be restored to $2.53 per share?
-------------------- New to the game... but I'm a quick learner.
IP: Logged |
posted
while i like this stock, i don't think it will be running next week due to the hurricane plays stealing the show,....and alotta traders too....good luck.....it;s a great stock for a longer hold....just not this week.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
