[Chat . . . Ah, shucks. . .]
<<<This may be true but he may be worth listening to. He's one of the Bit Spitting dudes I worked with at Ascend. <g>>>>
Ah, shucks, you mean he's got something worthwhile to say? <g>
Actually, I'm sure he does, but my point is still valid, that you have to know where someone's coming from to fully understand what they're saying. I've read so many "professional" articles with obvious biases I'm almost to the point I don't bother. With TeleChoice, for example, I always keep in mind their advertising base. You don't kill the goose that lays the eggs, right?
When you post on a specific thread, your bias is known at the outset --- or if you're there to flame, that becomes evident, too. No one who is long Amati pretends to be unbiased. You don't invest in a company with no earnings if you don't think they've got a good chance of success going forward. Where with professional journals and online news services you expect or would hope for objective reporting. I'm not even convinced marketing firms are completely unbiased. I guess I'd like to know who the biggest supporters for Dataquest, Forrester, and the others are. There was one, I forget its name, who put out a report about a year ago saying cable was the wave of the future and I checked and sure enough it was put out by the Cable Industry.
I do think Dataquest and Forrester are beyond bias so don't anyone start screaming I've got my head in the sand.
At any rate, coffee was rich and good this morning. The fog had burned off by the time I was through so drove home with the top down.
The Fair's on, beaches are filling up, summer's in full swing.
Come on out, yah hear???? <g>
Cheers!
Pat |
