Robert, I believe Larry said it very well - there hasn't been any "insider information" posted on this thread that I've seen, either. When people call the company and talk to guys like Reed or Archibald, they get answers to their questions. But all I've seen has been very general in nature, no sensitive information such as on-going negotiations with specific customers, etc, as Larry pointed out. I don't understand the tendency by some on this thread to literally declare someone a liar, or accusing someone of having a "God complex", or whatever the hell he called it, based on no evidence but the accuser's personal beliefs. I look at a lot of other SI threads, where people routinely report having spoken with officials of the companies involved, but I don't see the character of those posters maligned.
I'm fairly sure everyone here knows that they should apply their own filter to what they read in these posts, and as far as someone fabricating information in order to hype the stock I'm also fairly sure that any comments made by one or two posters will not move the stock price one bit. So what would they gain?
I also don't buy the inference that people who wish to maintain anonymity are therefore not to be believed. Many, myself included, prefer this because we are discussing our personal financial affairs in a public forum. If we say we "heard from a friend" some tidbit of news, why would it make the news any more believable if we said the friend's name is Joe Blow, or whatever? It can still be just as much b.s. if he so chooses, name or no name. But I will say this much; the comments I passed on from some posters on AOL have since been corroborated privately to me by several individuals who have talked with senior management today, and WHOM I ABSOLUTELY TRUST, and if there are some here who choose to believe otherwise, well, I'll gladly defer to our friend Clark Gable - frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!
- T - |
