JohnG, re: A little touchy perhaps about being "inbred" on this noble thread?
You post: "Bill Dalglish. You insult our collective intelligence. This is not the Fri Nite Live thread. Some of these people are sharp legally, others in telecom tech, others in business strategy, others rich in experience. We who have been here a while know who they are. And now here you come, claiming to be an expert (ex=away from home; spirt=small drip) Piled Higher and Deeper. Well BS, you are smart enough to know that ypu can't decieve and outwit the regulars on the thread. So, what the hell are you doing? Are you trying to decieve the lurkers or are you just on some ego trip"
I would never question the fact that "you insiders" here are:
"sharp" in legal matters, in technology, in business strategy, in experience.
Nor do I question your contention that the insiders among you know who speaks infallibly and who does not.
But if the "insiders" case was indeed perceived by all who read these posts to be infallible, there would be no interest among persons here in visiting a web site that, altho generally supportive of Qualcomm (see: telecomtechstocks.com )
does remarkably have the shear audacity to question some of the "insiders" cherished (dare I say dogmatically held?) beliefs.
But quite the contrary to perceiving infallibility over here, John, over the past 48 hours or so, there have been over 1,350 "hits" to the "information cooperative for telecom tech investors" web site:
telecomtechstocks.com
In fact the interest has been so strong in this particular web site and its unorthodox, information cooperative approach (it is non-commercial and entirely cookie free) that it was featured in September in the Wall Street Journal's "Heard on the Net" column.
I have nothing to hide. You will find over a hundred cautionary statements throughout the site. My own background and credentials are publicly stated on site (http://www.telecomtechstocks.com/bill.htm )
And our "important disclosure" statement or links thereto are stated continuously throughout the site. See: telecomtechstocks.com
If there's any hidden agenda lurking somewhere, you sure won't find it on the www.TelecomTechStocks.com site.
As I have said before, if Qualcomm is being unfairly treated on this www.telecomTechStocks.com site, I want to know that! (So far, comments have been 100% favorable from our visitors.) Just click the "contact us" button on that site and I will hear of your complaint post haste.
I'm sorry if I've interupted a cozy little discussion here. I posted this weekend because someone I do NOT know here brought up a link to our site:
telecomtechstocks.com
I interpreted that as an invitation to join the discussion on this important thread.
I do sincerely welcome the 1,350 or so "hits" to our site attributable to the Silicon Investor QCOM thread the past two days and hope your visit was time well spent! Suggestions for improvement are always welcome!
Respectfully,
Bill Dalglish
Editor
www.TelecomTechStocks.com |
